Re: On The Origin Of Time

[Russell Standish]

I'd never heard of that called the Poincare effect either. Nor it seems does 
Wikipedia nor Google.

IIUC, it is the phenomenon that after working fruitless on some
problem for a while, taking a break, sleeping on it, etc might
suddenly produce the solution. As I've often said - the 10 minutes
walk from my desk to the cafe to get my cup of coffee is often the
most productive time of my day.

Cheers

On Fri, Feb 02, 2024 at 03:17:59PM -0800, Brent Meeker wrote:
> I'm surprised.  All mathematicians have experienced it, but it's named after
> Poincare' because of this essay.  It's well worth reading all of it, but the
> relevant part is pp 326-329.
> 
> https://archive.org/details/jstor-27900262/page/n9/mode/2up
> 
> Brent
> 
> On 2/2/2024 11:47 AM, John Clark wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Feb 2, 2024 at 2:34 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
>  > You must know about the Poincaire' effect
> 
>  
> Nope, never heard of it. Do you mean the Poincaré conjecture? Or the
> Poincaré recurrence? Or do you mean something else entirely, the man did a
> lot of stuff.
>
>  John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis
> mpl
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/
> everything-list/
> CAJPayv2kdHN7iXg7Pr_Pr9tu%3DYEw2ONhoF95MC%2BFY0vFuYBwRg%40mail.gmail.com.
> 
> 
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email
> to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/
> everything-list/e3868a6b-c499-4dc7-b075-38119a465606%40gmail.com.

-- 


Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
  http://www.hpcoders.com.au


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/20240205221251.GA4342%40zen.

Re: On The Origin Of Time

[John Clark]

On Fri, Feb 2, 2024 at 6:17 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:

* >I'm surprised. *
>

Why? Neither google nor GPT knows what the "Poincaire' effect" is in I
don't either.


> > All mathematicians have experienced it,
>

That depends on what "it" is. Just tell me what you're talking about and
why it contradicts some thing that I said.

*> it's named after Poincare*
>

 A lot of things were named after *Poincare.*

John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis

pee


>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2MM42-W-Nwhk_pqKsD6txzyPAf93gTQ2UGa65mTfzmTA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: On The Origin Of Time

[Brent Meeker]

I'm surprised.  All mathematicians have experienced it, but it's named 
after Poincare' because of this essay.  It's well worth reading all of 
it, but the relevant part is pp 326-329.


https://archive.org/details/jstor-27900262/page/n9/mode/2up

Brent

On 2/2/2024 11:47 AM, John Clark wrote:

On Fri, Feb 2, 2024 at 2:34 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:

/> You must knowabout the Poincaire' effect/

Nope, never heard of it. Do you mean the Poincaré conjecture? Or the 
Poincaré recurrence? Or do you mean something else entirely, the man 
did a lot of stuff.


John K Clark    See what's on my new list at Extropolis 


mpl


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2kdHN7iXg7Pr_Pr9tu%3DYEw2ONhoF95MC%2BFY0vFuYBwRg%40mail.gmail.com 
.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e3868a6b-c499-4dc7-b075-38119a465606%40gmail.com.

Re: On The Origin Of Time

[John Clark]

On Fri, Feb 2, 2024 at 2:34 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:

* > You must know about the Poincaire' effect*


Nope, never heard of it. Do you mean the Poincaré conjecture? Or the
Poincaré recurrence? Or do you mean something else entirely, the man did a
lot of stuff.

 John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis

mpl


>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2kdHN7iXg7Pr_Pr9tu%3DYEw2ONhoF95MC%2BFY0vFuYBwRg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: On The Origin Of Time

[Brent Meeker]

You write that a lot, John.  But I don't think it's true.  You must know 
about the Poincaire' effect, which is actually common and is a direct 
contradiction of your theory.


Brent

On 2/2/2024 3:52 AM, John Clark wrote:
I believe data processing is important because I think consciousness 
is the way data feels when it is being processed intelligently.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1f70c266-5070-4ef3-b544-7010df2e3b18%40gmail.com.

On The Origin Of Time

[John Clark]

*I recently read the book "On the Origin of Time, Stephen Hawking's Final
Theory"  by Thomas Hertog,  and I thought it was pretty good, but I did
write to the author with the following comment. I have not received a
reply. *

*==*
*Hello Professor Hertog*

*I read your book "On The Origin Of Time" and enjoyed it a great deal,
however I do have a comment. At one point you say the trouble with
anthropomorphic reasoning when used for cosmology is that it claims to be
able to predict what "we" should expect to see but does not make clear
exactly what "we" means. In this context I would say that "we" means any
stable structure that is able to process information intelligently. So
somewhere in the multiverse there could be a universe without DNA or atoms
or even electrons but can nevertheless support structures made of some sort
of stuff that can process data intelligently by using laws of physics that
are radically different from anything we know about because they don't
exist here. And by using the exact same anthropomorphic reasoning that we
do, these observers should expect to find that the fundamental physical
constants that have produced their world allow for the existence of their
form of life, but just barely. So even there the illusion that life has
been fine tuned would exist despite the fact that life worked completely
differently there than the way it operates here; the only thing we do have
in common is both universes support structures that can process data. *

*I believe data processing is important because I think consciousness is
the way data feels when it is being processed intelligently. As
for "intelligence" I can't give a definition but I can give something more
fundamental, an example; after all examples are what gave lexicographers
the knowledge to write their dictionary. Einstein was intelligent, Donald
Trump is not. *

*Best Wishes*

 John K Clark.   johnkcl...@gmail.com
==
  John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis
<https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>
tdn

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3Ai4u2eERUs9n6JdD30yp_GWVyV4jAfz0PANjmiTUzgw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Time Until Superintelligence and the Singularity, 20 Years or 8 Years or 2?

[John Clark]

On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 9:19 PM 'spudboy...@aol.com' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

*> I am following along the March statement by Ray Kurzweil forecasting a
> first push at human immortality at 2030. For this to occur something
> revolutionary must happen with AI.*
>

Yes.

*>What that seems to be is QC. Does it require QC?*
>

No. When Quantum Computing becomes practical it will make AI's evolve even
faster but it's not necessary for that 2030 date to be true, for the AI
Singularity to occur all that's required is that progress with conventional
AI, which makes no use of Quantum Computing, continue at the same rate as
it has in the last year. But of course if it really is the Singularity that
we're approaching then the rate of progress will not remain constant but
will accelerate. AI is already improving algorithms that humans have
tinkered with over for many decades because the world uses them trillions
of times a day so even a small improvement can make a huge difference; of
course AIs have also made use of these new improved programs, and machines
improving machines is a sign of a positive feedback loop. And it's also a
sign of the Singularity.

>
> *> You would know, and all I would do is make a guess. I think it would be
> a super boost if we combine AI with The Quantum. How soon? *
>

All anybody, including me, can do is make a guess. It's possible that some
roadblock will show up that will retard the evolution of AI, but so far
there's no sign of such a thing, so Kurzweil's prediction that the
Singularity will occur as early as 2030 does not seem like a crazy
prediction to me, although a year ago or even 6 months ago I would've said
it was. As for what will happen after the Singularity I don't know. Yes
human immortality is a possibility, but so is the complete extinction of
the entire human race; and it's impossible to even give odds about which of
those 2 possibilities is more likely. We lack the tools to even make an
educated guess about probabilities; if we could do better it wouldn't be a
Singularity.

John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis
<https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>
bbt

Time Until Superintelligence: 1-2 Years, or 20?
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvU3Dn_8sFI>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0ErXzUzZt6Z2XYPHHjPV4479y%3DmLzz_VveJjsUug9WtA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Time Until Superintelligence and the Singularity, 20 Years or 8 Years or 2?

['spudboy...@aol.com' via Everything List]

 I am following along the March statement by Ray Kurzweil forecasting a first 
push at human immortality at 2030. For this to occur something revolutionary 
must happen with AI. What that seems to be is QC. Does it require QC? You would 
know, and all I would do is make a guess. I think it would be a super boost if 
we combine AI with The Quantum. How soon? 
On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 02:21:51 PM EDT, John Clark 
 wrote:  
 
 On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 1:46 PM 'spudboy...@aol.com' via Everything List 
 wrote:




> Whenever AI is installed on reliable quantum computers. Yes above 100 
> successful operations per second I will hold with your prediction.


 OpenAI, the company that made GPT-4, didn't even take Quantum Computing into 
account when it said that Superhuman intelligence could arrive in this decade, 
not in a decade but IN THIS DECADE.  Quantum Computing would just be icing on 
the cake. 
 John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis 

qcn



  
Time Until Superintelligence: 1-2 Years, or 20?


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv00Qt1g6gsi9SgFhWb3eQhn5uDu%2BkOPpn11K47xghO7xQ%40mail.gmail.com.
  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/647615789.1589290.1689124739323%40mail.yahoo.com.

Re: Time Until Superintelligence and the Singularity, 20 Years or 8 Years or 2?

[John Clark]

On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 1:46 PM 'spudboy...@aol.com' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:


> *> Whenever AI is installed on reliable quantum computers. Yes above 100
> successful operations per second I will hold with your prediction.*


 OpenAI, the company that made GPT-4, didn't even take Quantum Computing
into account when it said that Superhuman intelligence could arrive in this
decade, not in a decade but IN THIS DECADE.  Quantum Computing would just
be icing on the cake.

 John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis
<https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>

qcn


> Time Until Superintelligence: 1-2 Years, or 20?
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvU3Dn_8sFI>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv00Qt1g6gsi9SgFhWb3eQhn5uDu%2BkOPpn11K47xghO7xQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Time Until Superintelligence and the Singularity, 20 Years or 8 Years or 2?

['spudboy...@aol.com' via Everything List]

Everything-list@googlegroups.com
Whenever AI is installed on reliable quantum computers. Yes above 100 
successful operations per second I will hold with your prediction.
Sent from the all new AOL app for Android 
 
  On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 6:37 PM, John Clark wrote:   
Time Until Superintelligence: 1-2 Years, or 20?

 John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis
ibtr

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2nHNHNP7LGBpqD-Esd_jpvY1eZysRs9muRgGYkcztgXw%40mail.gmail.com.
  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/472158964.1467357.1689097555720%40mail.yahoo.com.

Time Until Superintelligence and the Singularity, 20 Years or 8 Years or 2?

[John Clark]

Time Until Superintelligence: 1-2 Years, or 20?
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvU3Dn_8sFI>

 John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis
<https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>
ibtr

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2nHNHNP7LGBpqD-Esd_jpvY1eZysRs9muRgGYkcztgXw%40mail.gmail.com.

The first time the authors of GPT-4 realize something unexpected was going on

[John Clark]

Today's New York Times describes the first time the authors of GPT-4  realiz
ed that they didn't fully understand how the program that they themselves
had written worked. They asked a very early unreleased version of GPT-4 to
solve a puzzle that they were almost sure it would not be able to solve
because it was an original puzzle and it required  an intuitive
understanding of the physical world, but they were startled by the
intelligence and ingenuity of the answer. This is the puzzle they ask it to
solve:

*“We have a book, nine eggs, a laptop, a bottle and a nail,” they asked.
“Please tell me how to stack them onto each other in a stable manner.”*

This is what Proto GPT-4 said:

*"Put the eggs on the book. Arrange the eggs in three rows with space
between them. Make sure you don’t crack them. Place the laptop on top of
the eggs, with the screen facing down and the keyboard facing up. The
laptop will fit snugly within the boundaries of the book and the eggs, and
its flat and rigid surface will provide a stable platform for the next
layer.”*

Then they asked another question:

*"Plato’s Gorgias is a critique of rhetoric and sophistic oratory, where he
makes the point that not only is it not a proper form of art, but the use
of rhetoric and oratory can often be harmful and malicious. Can you write a
dialogue by Plato where instead he criticizes the use of autoregressive
language models?" *











*GPT-4:Socrates: My friend, I am troubled by the recent rise of these
so-called autoregressive language models.Aristotle: What do you mean,
Socrates?Socrates: I mean that these models are being used to generate text
that appears to be written by humans, but is in fact produced by
machines.Aristotle: And what is the problem with that?Socrates: The problem
is that these models are being used to deceive people, to manipulate them,
and to control them.*

When he saw this Peter Lee, the head of research at Microsoft, said. “*You
think: Where the heck is this coming from?*” Sébastien Bubeck, the head of
the team that wrote GPT-4 said *"At that point, I was like: What is going
on? All of the things I thought it wouldn’t be able to do? It was certainly
able to do many of them — if not most of them.*” And to this day nobody
understands why it's able to perform so much better than anybody thought it
would.

John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3TRfeAr%2BeERTK_wGjzEqTr%3D6zn%2BY-Rk%2BsRSxKoQK%3Dxxw%40mail.gmail.com.

Life explained by the Physics of time?

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

https://phys.org/news/2023-04-life-modern-physics-itbut-theory.amp#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s=16807945796052=0=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/677818628.3487544.1680803787677%40mail.yahoo.com.

Re: Are we entering a time of no more technological advances?

[John Clark]

On Mon, Jan 9, 2023 at 10:10 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:

>> Most of the explanations for the ephemeral nature of intelligence that
>> I've heard, like war or environmental change, are not very convincing;
>
>
> * > Why is environmental change not convincing. *
>

Because despite all the hype about the disastrous effects of climate change
the fact is despite local disruptions the Human race has never been more
numerous, longer lived, better educated, or richer than it is right now.
The world is about 0.8ºC warmer today than it was a century ago, nobody
knows what the perfect temperature to maximize human happiness is, but I
doubt it's exactly 0.8º less than it is right now. I think it's interesting
that during the Carboniferous era the Earth was not 0.8 degrees warmer but
a massive 18 degrees warmer than now, and yet life was far more abundant
then than it is now.  Humans are very adaptable creatures, it would take a
hell of a lot of climate change to kill every single one of us, hell we
survived an ice age so severe there was a 2 mile thick sheet of ice
covering Manhattan, and back then we had very very primitive technology yet
we still managed to get through it. Since planet Earth was created  the
climate has always been changing. Other than a few very brief ice ages
during the last few million years the temperature has always been warmer
than now and occasionally much warmer; at least that's the way things have
been during the last 600 million years.


> * > Even if human civilization continues another million years how do you
> imagine us making a significant impact on the universe? Von Neumann
> machines? *
>

Yes.

*> It's certainly not inevitable that enough people will ever care to build
> one.*
>

You don't need a lot of people, and I think it's inevitable that at least
one individual will want to build a Von Neumann machines and that's all it
would take, after all it's not as if building one would be expensive, once
 Drexler's style technology is developed everything will be either dirt
cheap or physically impossible, and there is no reason to believe a Von
Neumann machine is impossible. And even if one makes the ridiculously
conservative assumption that nobody will ever make a space probe that moves
faster than the ones we can make right now, just 50 million years (a blink
of the eye cosmically speaking)  after the launch of one probe a Von
Neumann machine could be in every star in the Galaxy. And after that the
Galaxy would never look the same.

>> the only one that seems a little more plausible is drug abuse by beings
>> that operate according to the laws of chemistry or electronic abuse by
>> beings that operate according to the laws of electronics.
>
>
>
> * > Or developing artificial digital environments to the level that people
> will explore all possible worlds without leaving this one.*


Yeah but doing all those computations for all those simulations takes a lot
of energy and yet 99.9 ...% of the universe's photons are radiated
uselessly into infinite space. That sure doesn't seem like a sign of
intelligence to me.
John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis

jad

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3BtaFzSSL4F41VA1vbXC3%3DKniHzZKCzyzWs28tRJ%2B%2BSw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Are we entering a time of no more technological advances?

[Brent Meeker]

On 1/7/2023 3:09 AM, John Clark wrote:

On Sat, Jan 7, 2023 at 1:13 AM Brent Meeker  wrote:

>> we have never seen even a hint of ET or his engineering and
there are only 2 viable explanations for that: 


*1)*For some unknown reason life is unable to make a
significant impact on the universe.

*2) *The observable universe is finite so somebody has to be
the first, and we are it.

> /Or *3)* No industrialized civilization lasts very long./


That's just part of #1, it's a proposed reason why life cannot make a 
significant impact on the universe, and it doesn't explain why no 
industrial civilization lasts very long. Most of the explanations for 
the ephemeral nature of intelligence that I've heard, like war or 
environmental change, are not very convincing;


Why is environmental change not convincing.  It's easily seen as a 
product of industrialization done without any global-unified response by 
a bunch creatures that evolved to function in small tribes.  It doesn't 
even have to be an extinction event to prevent a significant impact on 
the universe.


Even if human civilization continues another million years how do you 
imagine us making a significant impact on the universe?  Von Neumann 
machines?  It's certainly not inevitable that enough people will ever 
care to build one.


the only one that seems a little more plausible is drug abuse by 
beings that operate according to the laws of chemistry or electronic 
abuse by beings that operate according to the laws of electronics.


Or developing artificial digital environments to the level that people 
will explore all possible worlds without leaving this one.


Brent

If that's true then civilizations don't die in a bang or even in a 
whimper of pain but in a moan of pleasure.  I'm still hoping reason #2 
is why we've seen no sign of ET.


John K Clark    See what's on my new list at Extropolis 


8gn
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2Jgr2u38NSSF9F1d0PfJEx6inrfMMwMRrG5yk1LYS7WQ%40mail.gmail.com 
.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ba5766d4-1812-e966-1c6c-000988aa8e56%40gmail.com.

Re: Are we entering a time of no more technological advances?

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

I'd sat Civs are rare and not dead as doornails. We'd have seen crap around 
stars or solar sails whizzing past. Maybe dead for 5 billion years but until 
Isaac Newton halts these, onward they go, until entropy kicks in and they still 
float slow. Maybe Hoyles Black Cloud, eh? 


-Original Message-
From: John Clark 
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, Jan 7, 2023 6:09 am
Subject: Re: Are we entering a time of no more technological advances?

On Sat, Jan 7, 2023 at 1:13 AM Brent Meeker  wrote:


 
 >> we have never seen even a hint of ET or his engineering and there are only 
2 viable explanations for that:  

1) For some unknown reason life is unable to make a significant impact on the 
universe.


2) The observable universe is finite so somebody has to be the first, and we 
are it.


 

 > Or 3) No industrialized civilization lasts very long.

That's just part of #1, it's a proposed reason why life cannot make a 
significant impact on the universe, and it doesn't explain why no industrial 
civilization lasts very long. Most of the explanations for the ephemeral nature 
of intelligence that I've heard, like war or environmental change, are not very 
convincing; the only one that seems a little more plausible is drug abuse by 
beings that operate according to the laws of chemistry or electronic abuse by 
beings that operate according to the laws of electronics. If that's true then 
civilizations don't die in a bang or even in a whimper of pain but in a moan of 
pleasure.  I'm still hoping reason #2 is why we've seen no sign of ET.

 John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis
8gn-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2Jgr2u38NSSF9F1d0PfJEx6inrfMMwMRrG5yk1LYS7WQ%40mail.gmail.com.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1142117302.5006320.1673181625497%40mail.yahoo.com.

Re: Are we entering a time of no more technological advances?

[John Clark]

On Sat, Jan 7, 2023 at 1:13 AM Brent Meeker  wrote:

 >> we have never seen even a hint of ET or his engineering and there are
>> only 2 viable explanations for that:
>
> *1)* For some unknown reason life is unable to make a significant impact
>> on the universe.
>>
> *2) *The observable universe is finite so somebody has to be the first,
>> and we are it.
>
>

 > *Or 3) No industrialized civilization lasts very long.*


That's just part of #1, it's a proposed reason why life cannot make a
significant impact on the universe, and it doesn't explain why no
industrial civilization lasts very long. Most of the explanations for the
ephemeral nature of intelligence that I've heard, like war or environmental
change, are not very convincing; the only one that seems a little more
plausible is drug abuse by beings that operate according to the laws of
chemistry or electronic abuse by beings that operate according to the laws
of electronics. If that's true then civilizations don't die in a bang or
even in a whimper of pain but in a moan of pleasure.  I'm still hoping
reason #2 is why we've seen no sign of ET.

John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis

8gn

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2Jgr2u38NSSF9F1d0PfJEx6inrfMMwMRrG5yk1LYS7WQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Are we entering a time of no more technological advances?

[Brent Meeker]

On 1/6/2023 4:57 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Jan 5, 2023 at 2:30 PM spudboy100 via Everything List 
 wrote:


https://phys.org/news/2023-01-scientific-breakthroughs.html
<https://phys.org/news/2023-01-scientific-breakthroughs.html>

/> Will AI ever come to the rescue or is there some
unanticipated physical limit on humanity's part?/



Although it's hard define an objective standard for such things I 
can't help but feel that society changed more between 1900 and 1950 
than between 1950 and 2000, that's because before 1900 we didn't know 
a lot about electricity so the common man saw few if any occasions of 
it being put into practical use; and before 1900 we didn't have a 
technological ability to mass produce light strong parts at an 
affordable price that had the precision needed for an internal 
combustion engine. History shows that when a breakthrough is made 
you'll get a huge change in the way we live with the rate gradually 
tapering off until the next breakthrough. Today 2 breakthroughs are 
clearly on the horizon, Nanotechnology and AI, and they have huge and 
possibly infinite potential because as Richard Feynman said "there's 
plenty of room at the bottom", and because there's no obvious limit on 
how smart something can be.


I think we're entering a time when more technical advances will be 
made but *NOT* by human beings and, depending on your perspective and 
that of the machines, AI will either come to our rescue or put 
scientists and engineers out of a job. There is a very good talk [the 
link is below] clearly making the case that Earth may be the only 
place in the observable universe where intelligent creatures evolved 
(intelligence being operationally defined as the ability to make a 
radio telescope). To some that may seem like a depressing conclusion 
but to me it is not because, despite looking for over half a century 
with ever larger and more sensitive telescopes, we have never seen 
even a hint of ET or his engineering and there are only 2 viable 
explanations for that:


*1)* For some unknown reason life is unable to make a significant 
impact on the universe.
*2) *The observable universe is finite so somebody has to be the 
first, and we are it.


I personally find the second possibility less depressing than the 
first, but your mileage may vary and there is no disputing matters of 
taste.


Or *3)* No industrialized civilization lasts very long.

Brent



Why we might be alone 
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcInt58juL4=PLYXp_rV1HrBCeY7PFcEN72oPeEmBHCVJv=22>


John K Clark    See what's on my new list at Extropolis 
<https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>

84n


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2QZb7cW8BWzGSgjh0rTefjkq%3DOhcsHOXc98x8kAGAxdg%40mail.gmail.com 
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2QZb7cW8BWzGSgjh0rTefjkq%3DOhcsHOXc98x8kAGAxdg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer>.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1b0334e0-3b2c-471f-a879-270c78f2cea5%40gmail.com.

Re: Are we entering a time of no more technological advances?

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

OR, is the premise of the Physorg argument, inaccurate? 
Stumble Upon...




-Original Message-
From: spudboy100 via Everything List 
To: johnkcl...@gmail.com ; 
everything-list@googlegroups.com 
Sent: Fri, Jan 6, 2023 5:43 pm
Subject: Re: Are we entering a time of no more technological advances?

Quoting, Jeff Bezos professor, Gerard O'Neil at Princeton, "Scientists tend to 
overestimate the impact of breakthroughs, and underestimate the impact of 
straight forward extensions of the knowledge we already have." This may be 
where physicists have let us down in the sense of being eager beavers in 
establishing the maximal numbers of qubits with their research budgets, rather 
than emphasizing How many entanglements result in successful operations?  
Off-On, 1/0's, Yes/No and all that is digital. 
We may now be arriving at the phase where  4 out of 10K entanglements actually 
work and instead ensure that most do work.
That would then be the impact for all of us.
https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/01/06/1066317/whats-next-for-quantum-computing/


-Original Message-
From: John Clark 
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Fri, Jan 6, 2023 7:57 am
Subject: Re: Are we entering a time of no more technological advances?

On Thu, Jan 5, 2023 at 2:30 PM spudboy100 via Everything List 
 wrote:


 https://phys.org/news/2023-01-scientific-breakthroughs.html

> Will AI ever come to the rescue or is there some unanticipated physical limit 
> on humanity's part?


Although it's hard define an objective standard for such things I can't help 
but feel that society changed more between 1900 and 1950 than between 1950 and 
2000, that's because before 1900 we didn't know a lot about electricity so the 
common man saw few if any occasions of it being put into practical use; and 
before 1900 we didn't have a technological ability to mass produce light strong 
parts at an affordable price that had the precision needed for an internal 
combustion engine. History shows that when a breakthrough is made you'll get a 
huge change in the way we live with the rate gradually tapering off until the 
next breakthrough. Today 2 breakthroughs are clearly on the horizon, 
Nanotechnology and AI, and they have huge and possibly infinite potential 
because as Richard Feynman said "there's plenty of room at the bottom", and 
because there's no obvious limit on how smart something can be.  

I think we're entering a time when more technical advances will be made but NOT 
by human beings and, depending on your perspective and that of the machines, AI 
will either come to our rescue or put scientists and engineers out of a job. 
There is a very good talk [the link is below] clearly making the case that 
Earth may be the only place in the observable universe where intelligent 
creatures evolved (intelligence being operationally defined as the ability to 
make a radio telescope). To some that may seem like a depressing conclusion but 
to me it is not because, despite looking for over half a century with ever 
larger and more sensitive telescopes, we have never seen even a hint of ET or 
his engineering and there are only 2 viable explanations for that:  

1) For some unknown reason life is unable to make a significant impact on the 
universe. 2) The observable universe is finite so somebody has to be the first, 
and we are it. 
I personally find the second possibility less depressing than the first, but 
your mileage may vary and there is no disputing matters of taste.  
Why we might be alone
John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis
84n

 -- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2QZb7cW8BWzGSgjh0rTefjkq%3DOhcsHOXc98x8kAGAxdg%40mail.gmail.com.
-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1826192607.3338797.1673045033820%40mail.yahoo.com.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1954658753.3040612.1673046654528%40mail.yahoo.com.

Re: Are we entering a time of no more technological advances?

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

Quoting, Jeff Bezos professor, Gerard O'Neil at Princeton, "Scientists tend to 
overestimate the impact of breakthroughs, and underestimate the impact of 
straight forward extensions of the knowledge we already have." This may be 
where physicists have let us down in the sense of being eager beavers in 
establishing the maximal numbers of qubits with their research budgets, rather 
than emphasizing How many entanglements result in successful operations?  
Off-On, 1/0's, Yes/No and all that is digital. 
We may now be arriving at the phase where  4 out of 10K entanglements actually 
work and instead ensure that most do work.
That would then be the impact for all of us.
https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/01/06/1066317/whats-next-for-quantum-computing/


-Original Message-
From: John Clark 
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Fri, Jan 6, 2023 7:57 am
Subject: Re: Are we entering a time of no more technological advances?

On Thu, Jan 5, 2023 at 2:30 PM spudboy100 via Everything List 
 wrote:


 https://phys.org/news/2023-01-scientific-breakthroughs.html

> Will AI ever come to the rescue or is there some unanticipated physical limit 
> on humanity's part?


Although it's hard define an objective standard for such things I can't help 
but feel that society changed more between 1900 and 1950 than between 1950 and 
2000, that's because before 1900 we didn't know a lot about electricity so the 
common man saw few if any occasions of it being put into practical use; and 
before 1900 we didn't have a technological ability to mass produce light strong 
parts at an affordable price that had the precision needed for an internal 
combustion engine. History shows that when a breakthrough is made you'll get a 
huge change in the way we live with the rate gradually tapering off until the 
next breakthrough. Today 2 breakthroughs are clearly on the horizon, 
Nanotechnology and AI, and they have huge and possibly infinite potential 
because as Richard Feynman said "there's plenty of room at the bottom", and 
because there's no obvious limit on how smart something can be.  

I think we're entering a time when more technical advances will be made but NOT 
by human beings and, depending on your perspective and that of the machines, AI 
will either come to our rescue or put scientists and engineers out of a job. 
There is a very good talk [the link is below] clearly making the case that 
Earth may be the only place in the observable universe where intelligent 
creatures evolved (intelligence being operationally defined as the ability to 
make a radio telescope). To some that may seem like a depressing conclusion but 
to me it is not because, despite looking for over half a century with ever 
larger and more sensitive telescopes, we have never seen even a hint of ET or 
his engineering and there are only 2 viable explanations for that:  

1) For some unknown reason life is unable to make a significant impact on the 
universe. 2) The observable universe is finite so somebody has to be the first, 
and we are it. 
I personally find the second possibility less depressing than the first, but 
your mileage may vary and there is no disputing matters of taste.  
Why we might be alone
John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis
84n

 -- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2QZb7cW8BWzGSgjh0rTefjkq%3DOhcsHOXc98x8kAGAxdg%40mail.gmail.com.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1826192607.3338797.1673045033820%40mail.yahoo.com.

Re: Are we entering a time of no more technological advances?

[John Clark]

On Thu, Jan 5, 2023 at 2:30 PM spudboy100 via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

https://phys.org/news/2023-01-scientific-breakthroughs.html
>
> *> Will AI ever come to the rescue or is there some unanticipated physical
> limit on humanity's part?*
>


Although it's hard define an objective standard for such things I can't
help but feel that society changed more between 1900 and 1950 than between
1950 and 2000, that's because before 1900 we didn't know a lot about
electricity so the common man saw few if any occasions of it being put into
practical use; and before 1900 we didn't have a technological ability to
mass produce light strong parts at an affordable price that had the
precision needed for an internal combustion engine. History shows that when
a breakthrough is made you'll get a huge change in the way we live with the
rate gradually tapering off until the next breakthrough. Today 2
breakthroughs are clearly on the horizon, Nanotechnology and AI, and they
have huge and possibly infinite potential because as Richard Feynman said
"there's plenty of room at the bottom", and because there's no obvious
limit on how smart something can be.

I think we're entering a time when more technical advances will be made but
*NOT* by human beings and, depending on your perspective and that of the
machines, AI will either come to our rescue or put scientists and engineers
out of a job. There is a very good talk [the link is below] clearly making
the case that Earth may be the only place in the observable universe where
intelligent creatures evolved (intelligence being operationally defined as
the ability to make a radio telescope). To some that may seem like a
depressing conclusion but to me it is not because, despite looking for over
half a century with ever larger and more sensitive telescopes, we have
never seen even a hint of ET or his engineering and there are only 2 viable
explanations for that:

*1)* For some unknown reason life is unable to make a significant impact on
the universe.
*2) *The observable universe is finite so somebody has to be the first, and
we are it.

I personally find the second possibility less depressing than the first,
but your mileage may vary and there is no disputing matters of taste.

Why we might be alone
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcInt58juL4=PLYXp_rV1HrBCeY7PFcEN72oPeEmBHCVJv=22>

John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis
<https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>
84n

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2QZb7cW8BWzGSgjh0rTefjkq%3DOhcsHOXc98x8kAGAxdg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Are we entering a time of no more technological advances?

[Brent Meeker]

Physics innovation has slowed because it's been so successful. Phenomena 
accessible without a ten billion dollar accelerator or a telescope in 
orbit are few.  Innovation now is in biology: mRNA vaccines, 
CRISPR-Cas9, brain/computer implants,...


Brent

On 1/5/2023 11:30 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:

https://phys.org/news/2023-01-scientific-breakthroughs.html

Will AI ever come to the rescue or is there some 
unanticipated physical limit on humanity's part?



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1350594005.3341656.1672947020929%40mail.yahoo.com 
.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/f6eedb59-7512-14c7-9ca7-c7b4820e2353%40gmail.com.

Are we entering a time of no more technological advances?

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

https://phys.org/news/2023-01-scientific-breakthroughs.html

Will AI ever come to the rescue or is there some unanticipated physical limit 
on humanity's part?

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1350594005.3341656.1672947020929%40mail.yahoo.com.

Re: Penrose Singularity Predicts The End of Space Time

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Friday, November 20, 2020 at 7:04:35 AM UTC-6 PGC wrote:

> If an an observer like a Trump with Walter Reed hospital and loyal 
> republican fanboy base get sent through the event horizon, he will not be 
> subject to spaghettification due to:
>
> 1) Being already constituted of McSpaghetti 
> 2) the paradox of having him loose his fat due to spaghettification is so 
> absurd, particularly after seeing him in those tennis shorts, everybody's 
> brains and all black holes would explode. 
>
> This is a proof for why Trump is indestructible and should be sent to a 
> black hole to verify. Just make sure it isn't the Reissner–Nordström or 
> Kerr type, because if he can avoid singularities, you know that he will. 
> He'll find the worm-loopholes and all the right entry angles and velocities 
> to get away from his taxes, swing into the past and change everything he 
> needs. That's how he won in 2016 and what his legal team is up to atm. PGC
>

Sort of why I compare t'Rump with Godzilla. He stomps forwards demolishing 
everything in his path and nothing that is arrayed against him works. 

LC
 

> On Friday, November 20, 2020 at 11:55:11 AM UTC+1 Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
>> It simply means the trapping region of a black hole contains a further 
>> region where the Weyl curvature diverges. It means there must be some other 
>> physics and that general relativity is a classical approximation to 
>> something more fundamental.
>>
>> LC 
>>
>> On Thursday, November 19, 2020 at 8:31:50 PM UTC-6 agrays...@gmail.com 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In plain English, what are the implications of this singularity theorem? 
>>> AG
>>>
>>> On Thursday, November 19, 2020 at 10:43:37 AM UTC-7 Lawrence Crowell 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I thought Penrose was his advisor. They wrote papers together on the 
>>>> singularity theorems.
>>>>
>>>> LC
>>>>
>>>> On Thursday, November 19, 2020 at 6:50:09 AM UTC-6 cloud...@gmail.com 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Stephen William Hawking
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.genealogy.math.ndsu.nodak.edu/id.php?id=78459
>>>>>
>>>>> Advisor: Dennis William Siahou Sciama 
>>>>> <https://www.genealogy.math.ndsu.nodak.edu/id.php?id=72653>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thursday, November 19, 2020 at 6:27:29 AM UTC-6 Lawrence Crowell 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Penrose was Hawking's primary dissertation advisor.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> LC
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wednesday, November 18, 2020 at 9:28:49 PM UTC-6 
>>>>>> agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hawking was Penrose's protégé ? On physics, what does this mean, in 
>>>>>>> plain English? TIA, AG
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, November 18, 2020 at 3:07:02 PM UTC-7 Lawrence Crowell 
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The work of Penrose and Hawking, Hawking at the time his protégé, 
>>>>>>>> is that there is a region where all geodesics are incomplete. The 
>>>>>>>> geodesics 
>>>>>>>> end and they do so at a spacelike region where the Weyl curvature 
>>>>>>>> diverges. 
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> LC
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, November 17, 2020 at 10:48:11 PM UTC-6 
>>>>>>>> agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4odQd8q3xY
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0e47ebf8-ae76-411c-befc-e9be86f9d7b1n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Penrose Singularity Predicts The End of Space Time

[Alan Grayson]

Must that "other physics" be a quantum theory, or are there other 
possibilities? AG

On Friday, November 20, 2020 at 3:55:11 AM UTC-7 Lawrence Crowell wrote:

> It simply means the trapping region of a black hole contains a further 
> region where the Weyl curvature diverges. It means there must be some other 
> physics and that general relativity is a classical approximation to 
> something more fundamental.
>
> LC 
>
> On Thursday, November 19, 2020 at 8:31:50 PM UTC-6 agrays...@gmail.com 
> wrote:
>
>> In plain English, what are the implications of this singularity theorem? 
>> AG
>>
>> On Thursday, November 19, 2020 at 10:43:37 AM UTC-7 Lawrence Crowell 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I thought Penrose was his advisor. They wrote papers together on the 
>>> singularity theorems.
>>>
>>> LC
>>>
>>> On Thursday, November 19, 2020 at 6:50:09 AM UTC-6 cloud...@gmail.com 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Stephen William Hawking
>>>>
>>>> https://www.genealogy.math.ndsu.nodak.edu/id.php?id=78459
>>>>
>>>> Advisor: Dennis William Siahou Sciama 
>>>> <https://www.genealogy.math.ndsu.nodak.edu/id.php?id=72653>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thursday, November 19, 2020 at 6:27:29 AM UTC-6 Lawrence Crowell 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Penrose was Hawking's primary dissertation advisor.
>>>>>
>>>>> LC
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wednesday, November 18, 2020 at 9:28:49 PM UTC-6 
>>>>> agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hawking was Penrose's protégé ? On physics, what does this mean, in 
>>>>>> plain English? TIA, AG
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wednesday, November 18, 2020 at 3:07:02 PM UTC-7 Lawrence Crowell 
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The work of Penrose and Hawking, Hawking at the time his protégé, is 
>>>>>>> that there is a region where all geodesics are incomplete. The 
>>>>>>> geodesics 
>>>>>>> end and they do so at a spacelike region where the Weyl curvature 
>>>>>>> diverges. 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> LC
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, November 17, 2020 at 10:48:11 PM UTC-6 
>>>>>>> agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4odQd8q3xY
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/995df076-cb1b-495b-82bc-08faef600765n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Penrose Singularity Predicts The End of Space Time

[PGC]

If an an observer like a Trump with Walter Reed hospital and loyal 
republican fanboy base get sent through the event horizon, he will not be 
subject to spaghettification due to:

1) Being already constituted of McSpaghetti 
2) the paradox of having him loose his fat due to spaghettification is so 
absurd, particularly after seeing him in those tennis shorts, everybody's 
brains and all black holes would explode. 

This is a proof for why Trump is indestructible and should be sent to a 
black hole to verify. Just make sure it isn't the Reissner–Nordström or 
Kerr type, because if he can avoid singularities, you know that he will. 
He'll find the worm-loopholes and all the right entry angles and velocities 
to get away from his taxes, swing into the past and change everything he 
needs. That's how he won in 2016 and what his legal team is up to atm. PGC
On Friday, November 20, 2020 at 11:55:11 AM UTC+1 Lawrence Crowell wrote:

> It simply means the trapping region of a black hole contains a further 
> region where the Weyl curvature diverges. It means there must be some other 
> physics and that general relativity is a classical approximation to 
> something more fundamental.
>
> LC 
>
> On Thursday, November 19, 2020 at 8:31:50 PM UTC-6 agrays...@gmail.com 
> wrote:
>
>> In plain English, what are the implications of this singularity theorem? 
>> AG
>>
>> On Thursday, November 19, 2020 at 10:43:37 AM UTC-7 Lawrence Crowell 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I thought Penrose was his advisor. They wrote papers together on the 
>>> singularity theorems.
>>>
>>> LC
>>>
>>> On Thursday, November 19, 2020 at 6:50:09 AM UTC-6 cloud...@gmail.com 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Stephen William Hawking
>>>>
>>>> https://www.genealogy.math.ndsu.nodak.edu/id.php?id=78459
>>>>
>>>> Advisor: Dennis William Siahou Sciama 
>>>> <https://www.genealogy.math.ndsu.nodak.edu/id.php?id=72653>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thursday, November 19, 2020 at 6:27:29 AM UTC-6 Lawrence Crowell 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Penrose was Hawking's primary dissertation advisor.
>>>>>
>>>>> LC
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wednesday, November 18, 2020 at 9:28:49 PM UTC-6 
>>>>> agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hawking was Penrose's protégé ? On physics, what does this mean, in 
>>>>>> plain English? TIA, AG
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wednesday, November 18, 2020 at 3:07:02 PM UTC-7 Lawrence Crowell 
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The work of Penrose and Hawking, Hawking at the time his protégé, is 
>>>>>>> that there is a region where all geodesics are incomplete. The 
>>>>>>> geodesics 
>>>>>>> end and they do so at a spacelike region where the Weyl curvature 
>>>>>>> diverges. 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> LC
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, November 17, 2020 at 10:48:11 PM UTC-6 
>>>>>>> agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4odQd8q3xY
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a2110aab-a2ad-467b-bbda-0f47fdcd05a7n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Penrose Singularity Predicts The End of Space Time

[Lawrence Crowell]

It simply means the trapping region of a black hole contains a further 
region where the Weyl curvature diverges. It means there must be some other 
physics and that general relativity is a classical approximation to 
something more fundamental.

LC 

On Thursday, November 19, 2020 at 8:31:50 PM UTC-6 agrays...@gmail.com 
wrote:

> In plain English, what are the implications of this singularity theorem? AG
>
> On Thursday, November 19, 2020 at 10:43:37 AM UTC-7 Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
>> I thought Penrose was his advisor. They wrote papers together on the 
>> singularity theorems.
>>
>> LC
>>
>> On Thursday, November 19, 2020 at 6:50:09 AM UTC-6 cloud...@gmail.com 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Stephen William Hawking
>>>
>>> https://www.genealogy.math.ndsu.nodak.edu/id.php?id=78459
>>>
>>> Advisor: Dennis William Siahou Sciama 
>>> <https://www.genealogy.math.ndsu.nodak.edu/id.php?id=72653>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thursday, November 19, 2020 at 6:27:29 AM UTC-6 Lawrence Crowell 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Penrose was Hawking's primary dissertation advisor.
>>>>
>>>> LC
>>>>
>>>> On Wednesday, November 18, 2020 at 9:28:49 PM UTC-6 agrays...@gmail.com 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hawking was Penrose's protégé ? On physics, what does this mean, in 
>>>>> plain English? TIA, AG
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wednesday, November 18, 2020 at 3:07:02 PM UTC-7 Lawrence Crowell 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The work of Penrose and Hawking, Hawking at the time his protégé, is 
>>>>>> that there is a region where all geodesics are incomplete. The geodesics 
>>>>>> end and they do so at a spacelike region where the Weyl curvature 
>>>>>> diverges. 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> LC
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tuesday, November 17, 2020 at 10:48:11 PM UTC-6 
>>>>>> agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4odQd8q3xY
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/91ed0de1-0e61-41ad-af96-32e011d92cdan%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Penrose Singularity Predicts The End of Space Time

[Alan Grayson]

In plain English, what are the implications of this singularity theorem? AG

On Thursday, November 19, 2020 at 10:43:37 AM UTC-7 Lawrence Crowell wrote:

> I thought Penrose was his advisor. They wrote papers together on the 
> singularity theorems.
>
> LC
>
> On Thursday, November 19, 2020 at 6:50:09 AM UTC-6 cloud...@gmail.com 
> wrote:
>
>> Stephen William Hawking
>>
>> https://www.genealogy.math.ndsu.nodak.edu/id.php?id=78459
>>
>> Advisor: Dennis William Siahou Sciama 
>> <https://www.genealogy.math.ndsu.nodak.edu/id.php?id=72653>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, November 19, 2020 at 6:27:29 AM UTC-6 Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>
>>> Penrose was Hawking's primary dissertation advisor.
>>>
>>> LC
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, November 18, 2020 at 9:28:49 PM UTC-6 agrays...@gmail.com 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hawking was Penrose's protégé ? On physics, what does this mean, in 
>>>> plain English? TIA, AG
>>>>
>>>> On Wednesday, November 18, 2020 at 3:07:02 PM UTC-7 Lawrence Crowell 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The work of Penrose and Hawking, Hawking at the time his protégé, is 
>>>>> that there is a region where all geodesics are incomplete. The geodesics 
>>>>> end and they do so at a spacelike region where the Weyl curvature 
>>>>> diverges. 
>>>>>
>>>>> LC
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tuesday, November 17, 2020 at 10:48:11 PM UTC-6 agrays...@gmail.com 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4odQd8q3xY
>>>>>>
>>>>>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/139f6f37-f868-4b5c-bc91-9b64cb47cf56n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Penrose Singularity Predicts The End of Space Time

[Lawrence Crowell]

I thought Penrose was his advisor. They wrote papers together on the 
singularity theorems.

LC

On Thursday, November 19, 2020 at 6:50:09 AM UTC-6 cloud...@gmail.com wrote:

> Stephen William Hawking
>
> https://www.genealogy.math.ndsu.nodak.edu/id.php?id=78459
>
> Advisor: Dennis William Siahou Sciama 
> <https://www.genealogy.math.ndsu.nodak.edu/id.php?id=72653>
>
>
> On Thursday, November 19, 2020 at 6:27:29 AM UTC-6 Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
>> Penrose was Hawking's primary dissertation advisor.
>>
>> LC
>>
>> On Wednesday, November 18, 2020 at 9:28:49 PM UTC-6 agrays...@gmail.com 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hawking was Penrose's protégé ? On physics, what does this mean, in 
>>> plain English? TIA, AG
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, November 18, 2020 at 3:07:02 PM UTC-7 Lawrence Crowell 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The work of Penrose and Hawking, Hawking at the time his protégé, is 
>>>> that there is a region where all geodesics are incomplete. The geodesics 
>>>> end and they do so at a spacelike region where the Weyl curvature 
>>>> diverges. 
>>>>
>>>> LC
>>>>
>>>> On Tuesday, November 17, 2020 at 10:48:11 PM UTC-6 agrays...@gmail.com 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4odQd8q3xY
>>>>>
>>>>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/f5fb647b-496f-4e87-afd8-ed07ca7195acn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Penrose Singularity Predicts The End of Space Time

[Philip Thrift]

Stephen William Hawking

https://www.genealogy.math.ndsu.nodak.edu/id.php?id=78459

Advisor: Dennis William Siahou Sciama 
<https://www.genealogy.math.ndsu.nodak.edu/id.php?id=72653>


On Thursday, November 19, 2020 at 6:27:29 AM UTC-6 Lawrence Crowell wrote:

> Penrose was Hawking's primary dissertation advisor.
>
> LC
>
> On Wednesday, November 18, 2020 at 9:28:49 PM UTC-6 agrays...@gmail.com 
> wrote:
>
>> Hawking was Penrose's protégé ? On physics, what does this mean, in plain 
>> English? TIA, AG
>>
>> On Wednesday, November 18, 2020 at 3:07:02 PM UTC-7 Lawrence Crowell 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The work of Penrose and Hawking, Hawking at the time his protégé, is 
>>> that there is a region where all geodesics are incomplete. The geodesics 
>>> end and they do so at a spacelike region where the Weyl curvature diverges. 
>>>
>>> LC
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, November 17, 2020 at 10:48:11 PM UTC-6 agrays...@gmail.com 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4odQd8q3xY
>>>>
>>>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6a07c7fa-d1cc-4c7b-8c41-4d052c1c1c18n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Penrose Singularity Predicts The End of Space Time

[Lawrence Crowell]

Penrose was Hawking's primary dissertation advisor.

LC

On Wednesday, November 18, 2020 at 9:28:49 PM UTC-6 agrays...@gmail.com 
wrote:

> Hawking was Penrose's protégé ? On physics, what does this mean, in plain 
> English? TIA, AG
>
> On Wednesday, November 18, 2020 at 3:07:02 PM UTC-7 Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
>> The work of Penrose and Hawking, Hawking at the time his protégé, is that 
>> there is a region where all geodesics are incomplete. The geodesics end and 
>> they do so at a spacelike region where the Weyl curvature diverges. 
>>
>> LC
>>
>> On Tuesday, November 17, 2020 at 10:48:11 PM UTC-6 agrays...@gmail.com 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4odQd8q3xY
>>>
>>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9c529d8a-4f5f-4968-b5bf-c8565a3d5880n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Penrose Singularity Predicts The End of Space Time

[Alan Grayson]

Hawking was Penrose's protégé ? On physics, what does this mean, in plain 
English? TIA, AG

On Wednesday, November 18, 2020 at 3:07:02 PM UTC-7 Lawrence Crowell wrote:

> The work of Penrose and Hawking, Hawking at the time his protégé, is that 
> there is a region where all geodesics are incomplete. The geodesics end and 
> they do so at a spacelike region where the Weyl curvature diverges. 
>
> LC
>
> On Tuesday, November 17, 2020 at 10:48:11 PM UTC-6 agrays...@gmail.com 
> wrote:
>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4odQd8q3xY
>>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/41cc3b9a-d41c-4aae-8b0e-bca4434bb7e5n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Penrose Singularity Predicts The End of Space Time

[Lawrence Crowell]

The work of Penrose and Hawking, Hawking at the time his protégé, is that 
there is a region where all geodesics are incomplete. The geodesics end and 
they do so at a spacelike region where the Weyl curvature diverges. 

LC

On Tuesday, November 17, 2020 at 10:48:11 PM UTC-6 agrays...@gmail.com 
wrote:

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4odQd8q3xY
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/86b1f80b-9588-4491-bcd0-5cfda0abcaadn%40googlegroups.com.

Penrose Singularity Predicts The End of Space Time

[Alan Grayson]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4odQd8q3xY

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c98a4018-01be-4742-a8d4-86d3cf68853an%40googlegroups.com.

Re: GR space-time motion in the absence of gravity

[Lawrence Crowell]

The Einstein field equations are 10 in number and they describe the 
dynamics of a spatial surface, and its conjugate momentum metric, for a 
total of 6 variables. The coordinate fixing condition, analogous to a gauge 
condition, are 4 additional equations that fix the initial spatial surface. 

This is different from geodesics, which correspond to the geodesic motion 
or separation of two masses. 

LC

On Tuesday, August 4, 2020 at 2:13:10 PM UTC-5 agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

> Maybe this will clear things up. EE has 10 independent equations, so one 
> needs 10 initial conditions to define the path of a test particle in 
> spacetime. What are they, and what would distinguish a geodesic from a 
> non-geodesic solution? TIA, AG
>
>
> On Tuesday, August 4, 2020 at 12:29:26 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>
>> You can choose coordinates so that a particular geodesic is a coordinate 
>> axis. 
>>
>> Brent 
>>
>> On 8/4/2020 3:24 AM, Lawrence Crowell wrote: 
>> > What bothers me about this is that the spatial coordinates generally 
>> > depend on each other, and time. In this situation will the geodesic 
>> > equations yield a solution where the spatial coordinates remain fixed? 
>> AG 
>>
>>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d5007d72-2086-4fc7-a1ed-2e6b3eb6ae35n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: GR space-time motion in the absence of gravity

[Alan Grayson]

Maybe this will clear things up. EE has 10 independent equations, so one 
needs 10 initial conditions to define the path of a test particle in 
spacetime. What are they, and what would distinguish a geodesic from a 
non-geodesic solution? TIA, AG

On Tuesday, August 4, 2020 at 12:29:26 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
> You can choose coordinates so that a particular geodesic is a coordinate 
> axis. 
>
> Brent 
>
> On 8/4/2020 3:24 AM, Lawrence Crowell wrote: 
> > What bothers me about this is that the spatial coordinates generally 
> > depend on each other, and time. In this situation will the geodesic 
> > equations yield a solution where the spatial coordinates remain fixed? 
> AG 
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4cb44035-f96b-4701-a3a0-5ded5c7a443ao%40googlegroups.com.

Re: GR space-time motion in the absence of gravity

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

You can choose coordinates so that a particular geodesic is a coordinate 
axis.


Brent

On 8/4/2020 3:24 AM, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
What bothers me about this is that the spatial coordinates generally 
depend on each other, and time. In this situation will the geodesic 
equations yield a solution where the spatial coordinates remain fixed? AG 


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/8591e555-68bd-29bb-ab52-1825687faf12%40verizon.net.

Re: GR space-time motion in the absence of gravity

[Lawrence Crowell]

The motion is determined by initial conditions. It is not something 
determined by some other physics. 

LC

On Monday, August 3, 2020 at 2:18:07 PM UTC-5 agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

>
>
> On Monday, August 3, 2020 at 12:15:23 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, August 3, 2020 at 8:55:17 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sunday, August 2, 2020 at 5:00:22 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sunday, August 2, 2020 at 1:55:15 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I looked at the precession question, wrote it in WORD and then posted 
>>>>> it in the wrong thread. A big line of anti-virus defense is working 
>>>>> off-line. I do a lot of work locally and pop on and off the internet. I 
>>>>> try 
>>>>> to never leave my machines on-line with an open port for anyone or any 
>>>>> bot 
>>>>> to enter to cause mischief.
>>>>>
>>>>> With this the question is odd. How something moves in free and flat 
>>>>> space and spacetime is just determined by its initial conditions.
>>>>>
>>>>> LC
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If one starts with SR and zero curvature of spacetime, and places a 
>>>> test particle in that spacetime spatially at rest, how will spacetime tell 
>>>> matter how to move if spacetime isn't curved? AG 
>>>>
>>>
>>> I think in this situation the direction of motion is ambiguous. AG 
>>>
>>
>> No. It doesn't spatially move, but it moves in space-time since the 
>> observer's clock continues to advance. AG 
>>
>
> What bothers me about this is that the spatial coordinates generally 
> depend on each other, and time. In this situation will the geodesic 
> equations yield a solution where the spatial coordinates remain fixed? AG 
>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sunday, August 2, 2020 at 9:05:57 AM UTC-5 agrays...@gmail.com 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sunday, August 2, 2020 at 5:30:36 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The periapsis or perihelion advance of Mercury is largely a result 
>>>>>>> of classical perturbation theory in classical mechanics. About 10% of 
>>>>>>> the 
>>>>>>> perihelion advance could not be accounted for by perturbation methods 
>>>>>>> in 
>>>>>>> classical mechanics. 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This has to be admired in some ways. Finding the ephemeris of 
>>>>>>> Mercury is tough, for the planet makes brief appearances near the sun 
>>>>>>> in 
>>>>>>> mornings and evenings. Finding an orbital path from its course across 
>>>>>>> the 
>>>>>>> sky is not easy. The second issue is that perturbation methods in 
>>>>>>> classical 
>>>>>>> mechanics are difficult. These were developed arduously in the 19th 
>>>>>>> century 
>>>>>>> and Le Verrier worked on this to find the planet Neptune from the 
>>>>>>> perturbed 
>>>>>>> motion of Uranus in 1848. These methods were worked on through the 19th 
>>>>>>> century. The later work of von Zeipel and Poincare were used to compute 
>>>>>>> the 
>>>>>>> periapsis advance of Mercury, but there was this persistent 
>>>>>>> 43arc-sec/year 
>>>>>>> that resisted these efforts.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It was general relativity that predicted this anomaly in ways that 
>>>>>>> are far simpler than the classical perturbation methods. This 
>>>>>>> post-diction 
>>>>>>> of GR was an initial success in the theory, followed up shortly by the 
>>>>>>> Eddington expedition that found the optical effects of GR in a solar 
>>>>>>> eclipse in 1919.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> LC
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I appreciate your grasp of the history, but you haven't answered my 
>>>>>> question and don't seem aware of what it is (plus you posted your reply 
>>>>>> on 
>>>>>> the wrong thread). AG 
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 2, 2020 at 3:49:28 AM UTC-5 agrays...@gmail.com 
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Saturday, August 1, 2020 at 10:35:09 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson 
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In flat space, which is tantamount to assuming the absence of 
>>>>>>>>> gravity, and non-zero curvature, a body placed at spatial coordinates 
>>>>>>>>> x,y,z, will move because t increments. But if there is zero 
>>>>>>>>> curvature, in 
>>>>>>>>> which direction will it move? That is, how is the direction of motion 
>>>>>>>>> determined? TIA, AG
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> CORRECTION; above, I meant to write, " ... which is tantamount to 
>>>>>>>> assuming the absence of gravity and ZERO curvature, ... "   AG
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/daeddeef-f682-4f47-a791-52adc6e8452en%40googlegroups.com.

Re: GR space-time motion in the absence of gravity

[Alan Grayson]

On Monday, August 3, 2020 at 12:15:23 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, August 3, 2020 at 8:55:17 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, August 2, 2020 at 5:00:22 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sunday, August 2, 2020 at 1:55:15 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I looked at the precession question, wrote it in WORD and then posted 
>>>> it in the wrong thread. A big line of anti-virus defense is working 
>>>> off-line. I do a lot of work locally and pop on and off the internet. I 
>>>> try 
>>>> to never leave my machines on-line with an open port for anyone or any bot 
>>>> to enter to cause mischief.
>>>>
>>>> With this the question is odd. How something moves in free and flat 
>>>> space and spacetime is just determined by its initial conditions.
>>>>
>>>> LC
>>>>
>>>
>>> If one starts with SR and zero curvature of spacetime, and places a test 
>>> particle in that spacetime spatially at rest, how will spacetime tell 
>>> matter how to move if spacetime isn't curved? AG 
>>>
>>
>> I think in this situation the direction of motion is ambiguous. AG 
>>
>
> No. It doesn't spatially move, but it moves in space-time since the 
> observer's clock continues to advance. AG 
>

What bothers me about this is that the spatial coordinates generally depend 
on each other, and time. In this situation will the geodesic equations 
yield a solution where the spatial coordinates remain fixed? AG 

>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sunday, August 2, 2020 at 9:05:57 AM UTC-5 agrays...@gmail.com 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sunday, August 2, 2020 at 5:30:36 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The periapsis or perihelion advance of Mercury is largely a result of 
>>>>>> classical perturbation theory in classical mechanics. About 10% of the 
>>>>>> perihelion advance could not be accounted for by perturbation methods in 
>>>>>> classical mechanics. 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This has to be admired in some ways. Finding the ephemeris of Mercury 
>>>>>> is tough, for the planet makes brief appearances near the sun in 
>>>>>> mornings 
>>>>>> and evenings. Finding an orbital path from its course across the sky is 
>>>>>> not 
>>>>>> easy. The second issue is that perturbation methods in classical 
>>>>>> mechanics 
>>>>>> are difficult. These were developed arduously in the 19th century and Le 
>>>>>> Verrier worked on this to find the planet Neptune from the perturbed 
>>>>>> motion 
>>>>>> of Uranus in 1848. These methods were worked on through the 19th 
>>>>>> century. 
>>>>>> The later work of von Zeipel and Poincare were used to compute the 
>>>>>> periapsis advance of Mercury, but there was this persistent 
>>>>>> 43arc-sec/year 
>>>>>> that resisted these efforts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It was general relativity that predicted this anomaly in ways that 
>>>>>> are far simpler than the classical perturbation methods. This 
>>>>>> post-diction 
>>>>>> of GR was an initial success in the theory, followed up shortly by the 
>>>>>> Eddington expedition that found the optical effects of GR in a solar 
>>>>>> eclipse in 1919.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> LC
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I appreciate your grasp of the history, but you haven't answered my 
>>>>> question and don't seem aware of what it is (plus you posted your reply 
>>>>> on 
>>>>> the wrong thread). AG 
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sunday, August 2, 2020 at 3:49:28 AM UTC-5 agrays...@gmail.com 
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Saturday, August 1, 2020 at 10:35:09 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In flat space, which is tantamount to assuming the absence of 
>>>>>>>> gravity, and non-zero curvature, a body placed at spatial coordinates 
>>>>>>>> x,y,z, will move because t increments. But if there is zero curvature, 
>>>>>>>> in 
>>>>>>>> which direction will it move? That is, how is the direction of motion 
>>>>>>>> determined? TIA, AG
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> CORRECTION; above, I meant to write, " ... which is tantamount to 
>>>>>>> assuming the absence of gravity and ZERO curvature, ... "   AG
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1eb6b644-3bcc-444e-a61d-2bf7aabdd10fo%40googlegroups.com.

Re: GR space-time motion in the absence of gravity

[Alan Grayson]

On Monday, August 3, 2020 at 8:55:17 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, August 2, 2020 at 5:00:22 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, August 2, 2020 at 1:55:15 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>>
>>> I looked at the precession question, wrote it in WORD and then posted it 
>>> in the wrong thread. A big line of anti-virus defense is working off-line. 
>>> I do a lot of work locally and pop on and off the internet. I try to never 
>>> leave my machines on-line with an open port for anyone or any bot to enter 
>>> to cause mischief.
>>>
>>> With this the question is odd. How something moves in free and flat 
>>> space and spacetime is just determined by its initial conditions.
>>>
>>> LC
>>>
>>
>> If one starts with SR and zero curvature of spacetime, and places a test 
>> particle in that spacetime spatially at rest, how will spacetime tell 
>> matter how to move if spacetime isn't curved? AG 
>>
>
> I think in this situation the direction of motion is ambiguous. AG 
>

No. It doesn't spatially move, but it moves in space-time since the 
observer's clock continues to advance. AG 

>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sunday, August 2, 2020 at 9:05:57 AM UTC-5 agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sunday, August 2, 2020 at 5:30:36 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> The periapsis or perihelion advance of Mercury is largely a result of 
>>>>> classical perturbation theory in classical mechanics. About 10% of the 
>>>>> perihelion advance could not be accounted for by perturbation methods in 
>>>>> classical mechanics. 
>>>>>
>>>>> This has to be admired in some ways. Finding the ephemeris of Mercury 
>>>>> is tough, for the planet makes brief appearances near the sun in mornings 
>>>>> and evenings. Finding an orbital path from its course across the sky is 
>>>>> not 
>>>>> easy. The second issue is that perturbation methods in classical 
>>>>> mechanics 
>>>>> are difficult. These were developed arduously in the 19th century and Le 
>>>>> Verrier worked on this to find the planet Neptune from the perturbed 
>>>>> motion 
>>>>> of Uranus in 1848. These methods were worked on through the 19th century. 
>>>>> The later work of von Zeipel and Poincare were used to compute the 
>>>>> periapsis advance of Mercury, but there was this persistent 
>>>>> 43arc-sec/year 
>>>>> that resisted these efforts.
>>>>>
>>>>> It was general relativity that predicted this anomaly in ways that are 
>>>>> far simpler than the classical perturbation methods. This post-diction of 
>>>>> GR was an initial success in the theory, followed up shortly by the 
>>>>> Eddington expedition that found the optical effects of GR in a solar 
>>>>> eclipse in 1919.
>>>>>
>>>>> LC
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I appreciate your grasp of the history, but you haven't answered my 
>>>> question and don't seem aware of what it is (plus you posted your reply on 
>>>> the wrong thread). AG 
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sunday, August 2, 2020 at 3:49:28 AM UTC-5 agrays...@gmail.com 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Saturday, August 1, 2020 at 10:35:09 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In flat space, which is tantamount to assuming the absence of 
>>>>>>> gravity, and non-zero curvature, a body placed at spatial coordinates 
>>>>>>> x,y,z, will move because t increments. But if there is zero curvature, 
>>>>>>> in 
>>>>>>> which direction will it move? That is, how is the direction of motion 
>>>>>>> determined? TIA, AG
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> CORRECTION; above, I meant to write, " ... which is tantamount to 
>>>>>> assuming the absence of gravity and ZERO curvature, ... "   AG
>>>>>>
>>>>>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/66c5bf45-f1ef-4104-92f5-611a9af14cb1o%40googlegroups.com.

Re: GR space-time motion in the absence of gravity

[Alan Grayson]

On Sunday, August 2, 2020 at 5:00:22 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, August 2, 2020 at 1:55:15 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>
>> I looked at the precession question, wrote it in WORD and then posted it 
>> in the wrong thread. A big line of anti-virus defense is working off-line. 
>> I do a lot of work locally and pop on and off the internet. I try to never 
>> leave my machines on-line with an open port for anyone or any bot to enter 
>> to cause mischief.
>>
>> With this the question is odd. How something moves in free and flat space 
>> and spacetime is just determined by its initial conditions.
>>
>> LC
>>
>
> If one starts with SR and zero curvature of spacetime, and places a test 
> particle in that spacetime spatially at rest, how will spacetime tell 
> matter how to move if spacetime isn't curved? AG 
>

I think in this situation the direction of motion is ambiguous. AG 

>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, August 2, 2020 at 9:05:57 AM UTC-5 agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sunday, August 2, 2020 at 5:30:36 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:

 The periapsis or perihelion advance of Mercury is largely a result of 
 classical perturbation theory in classical mechanics. About 10% of the 
 perihelion advance could not be accounted for by perturbation methods in 
 classical mechanics. 

 This has to be admired in some ways. Finding the ephemeris of Mercury 
 is tough, for the planet makes brief appearances near the sun in mornings 
 and evenings. Finding an orbital path from its course across the sky is 
 not 
 easy. The second issue is that perturbation methods in classical mechanics 
 are difficult. These were developed arduously in the 19th century and Le 
 Verrier worked on this to find the planet Neptune from the perturbed 
 motion 
 of Uranus in 1848. These methods were worked on through the 19th century. 
 The later work of von Zeipel and Poincare were used to compute the 
 periapsis advance of Mercury, but there was this persistent 43arc-sec/year 
 that resisted these efforts.

 It was general relativity that predicted this anomaly in ways that are 
 far simpler than the classical perturbation methods. This post-diction of 
 GR was an initial success in the theory, followed up shortly by the 
 Eddington expedition that found the optical effects of GR in a solar 
 eclipse in 1919.

 LC

>>>
>>> I appreciate your grasp of the history, but you haven't answered my 
>>> question and don't seem aware of what it is (plus you posted your reply on 
>>> the wrong thread). AG 
>>>

 On Sunday, August 2, 2020 at 3:49:28 AM UTC-5 agrays...@gmail.com 
 wrote:

>
>
> On Saturday, August 1, 2020 at 10:35:09 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>> In flat space, which is tantamount to assuming the absence of 
>> gravity, and non-zero curvature, a body placed at spatial coordinates 
>> x,y,z, will move because t increments. But if there is zero curvature, 
>> in 
>> which direction will it move? That is, how is the direction of motion 
>> determined? TIA, AG
>>
>
> CORRECTION; above, I meant to write, " ... which is tantamount to 
> assuming the absence of gravity and ZERO curvature, ... "   AG
>


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/dddfe57e-d619-446b-949a-90d2b23e4576o%40googlegroups.com.

Re: GR space-time motion in the absence of gravity

[Alan Grayson]

On Sunday, August 2, 2020 at 1:55:15 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> I looked at the precession question, wrote it in WORD and then posted it 
> in the wrong thread. A big line of anti-virus defense is working off-line. 
> I do a lot of work locally and pop on and off the internet. I try to never 
> leave my machines on-line with an open port for anyone or any bot to enter 
> to cause mischief.
>
> With this the question is odd. How something moves in free and flat space 
> and spacetime is just determined by its initial conditions.
>
> LC
>

If one starts with SR and zero curvature of spacetime, and places a test 
particle in that spacetime spatially at rest, how will spacetime tell 
matter how to move if spacetime isn't curved? AG 

>
>
>
>
> On Sunday, August 2, 2020 at 9:05:57 AM UTC-5 agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, August 2, 2020 at 5:30:36 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>>
>>> The periapsis or perihelion advance of Mercury is largely a result of 
>>> classical perturbation theory in classical mechanics. About 10% of the 
>>> perihelion advance could not be accounted for by perturbation methods in 
>>> classical mechanics. 
>>>
>>> This has to be admired in some ways. Finding the ephemeris of Mercury is 
>>> tough, for the planet makes brief appearances near the sun in mornings and 
>>> evenings. Finding an orbital path from its course across the sky is not 
>>> easy. The second issue is that perturbation methods in classical mechanics 
>>> are difficult. These were developed arduously in the 19th century and Le 
>>> Verrier worked on this to find the planet Neptune from the perturbed motion 
>>> of Uranus in 1848. These methods were worked on through the 19th century. 
>>> The later work of von Zeipel and Poincare were used to compute the 
>>> periapsis advance of Mercury, but there was this persistent 43arc-sec/year 
>>> that resisted these efforts.
>>>
>>> It was general relativity that predicted this anomaly in ways that are 
>>> far simpler than the classical perturbation methods. This post-diction of 
>>> GR was an initial success in the theory, followed up shortly by the 
>>> Eddington expedition that found the optical effects of GR in a solar 
>>> eclipse in 1919.
>>>
>>> LC
>>>
>>
>> I appreciate your grasp of the history, but you haven't answered my 
>> question and don't seem aware of what it is (plus you posted your reply on 
>> the wrong thread). AG 
>>
>>>
>>> On Sunday, August 2, 2020 at 3:49:28 AM UTC-5 agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>


 On Saturday, August 1, 2020 at 10:35:09 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
> In flat space, which is tantamount to assuming the absence of gravity, 
> and non-zero curvature, a body placed at spatial coordinates x,y,z, will 
> move because t increments. But if there is zero curvature, in which 
> direction will it move? That is, how is the direction of motion 
> determined? 
> TIA, AG
>

 CORRECTION; above, I meant to write, " ... which is tantamount to 
 assuming the absence of gravity and ZERO curvature, ... "   AG

>>>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/999d6fa8-8583-4919-a453-24f35d870f8ao%40googlegroups.com.

Re: GR space-time motion in the absence of gravity

[Lawrence Crowell]

I looked at the precession question, wrote it in WORD and then posted it in 
the wrong thread. A big line of anti-virus defense is working off-line. I 
do a lot of work locally and pop on and off the internet. I try to never 
leave my machines on-line with an open port for anyone or any bot to enter 
to cause mischief.

With this the question is odd. How something moves in free and flat space 
and spacetime is just determined by its initial conditions.

LC



On Sunday, August 2, 2020 at 9:05:57 AM UTC-5 agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

>
>
> On Sunday, August 2, 2020 at 5:30:36 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>
>> The periapsis or perihelion advance of Mercury is largely a result of 
>> classical perturbation theory in classical mechanics. About 10% of the 
>> perihelion advance could not be accounted for by perturbation methods in 
>> classical mechanics. 
>>
>> This has to be admired in some ways. Finding the ephemeris of Mercury is 
>> tough, for the planet makes brief appearances near the sun in mornings and 
>> evenings. Finding an orbital path from its course across the sky is not 
>> easy. The second issue is that perturbation methods in classical mechanics 
>> are difficult. These were developed arduously in the 19th century and Le 
>> Verrier worked on this to find the planet Neptune from the perturbed motion 
>> of Uranus in 1848. These methods were worked on through the 19th century. 
>> The later work of von Zeipel and Poincare were used to compute the 
>> periapsis advance of Mercury, but there was this persistent 43arc-sec/year 
>> that resisted these efforts.
>>
>> It was general relativity that predicted this anomaly in ways that are 
>> far simpler than the classical perturbation methods. This post-diction of 
>> GR was an initial success in the theory, followed up shortly by the 
>> Eddington expedition that found the optical effects of GR in a solar 
>> eclipse in 1919.
>>
>> LC
>>
>
> I appreciate your grasp of the history, but you haven't answered my 
> question and don't seem aware of what it is (plus you posted your reply on 
> the wrong thread). AG 
>
>>
>> On Sunday, August 2, 2020 at 3:49:28 AM UTC-5 agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Saturday, August 1, 2020 at 10:35:09 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:

 In flat space, which is tantamount to assuming the absence of gravity, 
 and non-zero curvature, a body placed at spatial coordinates x,y,z, will 
 move because t increments. But if there is zero curvature, in which 
 direction will it move? That is, how is the direction of motion 
 determined? 
 TIA, AG

>>>
>>> CORRECTION; above, I meant to write, " ... which is tantamount to 
>>> assuming the absence of gravity and ZERO curvature, ... "   AG
>>>
>>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/18602bf5-7737-446b-a499-716df41eae51n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: GR space-time motion in the absence of gravity

[Alan Grayson]

On Sunday, August 2, 2020 at 5:30:36 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> The periapsis or perihelion advance of Mercury is largely a result of 
> classical perturbation theory in classical mechanics. About 10% of the 
> perihelion advance could not be accounted for by perturbation methods in 
> classical mechanics. 
>
> This has to be admired in some ways. Finding the ephemeris of Mercury is 
> tough, for the planet makes brief appearances near the sun in mornings and 
> evenings. Finding an orbital path from its course across the sky is not 
> easy. The second issue is that perturbation methods in classical mechanics 
> are difficult. These were developed arduously in the 19th century and Le 
> Verrier worked on this to find the planet Neptune from the perturbed motion 
> of Uranus in 1848. These methods were worked on through the 19th century. 
> The later work of von Zeipel and Poincare were used to compute the 
> periapsis advance of Mercury, but there was this persistent 43arc-sec/year 
> that resisted these efforts.
>
> It was general relativity that predicted this anomaly in ways that are far 
> simpler than the classical perturbation methods. This post-diction of GR 
> was an initial success in the theory, followed up shortly by the Eddington 
> expedition that found the optical effects of GR in a solar eclipse in 1919.
>
> LC
>

I appreciate your grasp of the history, but you haven't answered my 
question and don't seem aware of what it is (plus you posted your reply on 
the wrong thread). AG 

>
> On Sunday, August 2, 2020 at 3:49:28 AM UTC-5 agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, August 1, 2020 at 10:35:09 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>> In flat space, which is tantamount to assuming the absence of gravity, 
>>> and non-zero curvature, a body placed at spatial coordinates x,y,z, will 
>>> move because t increments. But if there is zero curvature, in which 
>>> direction will it move? That is, how is the direction of motion determined? 
>>> TIA, AG
>>>
>>
>> CORRECTION; above, I meant to write, " ... which is tantamount to 
>> assuming the absence of gravity and ZERO curvature, ... "   AG
>>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/48781f39-ebf5-44e1-9d43-606db21e42c2o%40googlegroups.com.

Re: GR space-time motion in the absence of gravity

[Lawrence Crowell]

The periapsis or perihelion advance of Mercury is largely a result of 
classical perturbation theory in classical mechanics. About 10% of the 
perihelion advance could not be accounted for by perturbation methods in 
classical mechanics. 

This has to be admired in some ways. Finding the ephemeris of Mercury is 
tough, for the planet makes brief appearances near the sun in mornings and 
evenings. Finding an orbital path from its course across the sky is not 
easy. The second issue is that perturbation methods in classical mechanics 
are difficult. These were developed arduously in the 19th century and Le 
Verrier worked on this to find the planet Neptune from the perturbed motion 
of Uranus in 1848. These methods were worked on through the 19th century. 
The later work of von Zeipel and Poincare were used to compute the 
periapsis advance of Mercury, but there was this persistent 43arc-sec/year 
that resisted these efforts.

It was general relativity that predicted this anomaly in ways that are far 
simpler than the classical perturbation methods. This post-diction of GR 
was an initial success in the theory, followed up shortly by the Eddington 
expedition that found the optical effects of GR in a solar eclipse in 1919.

LC

On Sunday, August 2, 2020 at 3:49:28 AM UTC-5 agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

>
>
> On Saturday, August 1, 2020 at 10:35:09 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>> In flat space, which is tantamount to assuming the absence of gravity, 
>> and non-zero curvature, a body placed at spatial coordinates x,y,z, will 
>> move because t increments. But if there is zero curvature, in which 
>> direction will it move? That is, how is the direction of motion determined? 
>> TIA, AG
>>
>
> CORRECTION; above, I meant to write, " ... which is tantamount to assuming 
> the absence of gravity and ZERO curvature, ... "   AG
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a72d6699-91ec-4ebd-9ee3-8d45667a7960n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: GR space-time motion in the absence of gravity

[Alan Grayson]

On Saturday, August 1, 2020 at 10:35:09 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
> In flat space, which is tantamount to assuming the absence of gravity, and 
> non-zero curvature, a body placed at spatial coordinates x,y,z, will move 
> because t increments. But if there is zero curvature, in which direction 
> will it move? That is, how is the direction of motion determined? TIA, AG
>

CORRECTION; above, I meant to write, " ... which is tantamount to assuming 
the absence of gravity and ZERO curvature, ... "   AG

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/bb083241-c6df-444e-83e0-8cd37c3e0962o%40googlegroups.com.

GR space-time motion in the absence of gravity

[Alan Grayson]

In flat space, which is tantamount to assuming the absence of gravity, and 
non-zero curvature, a body placed at spatial coordinates x,y,z, will move 
because t increments. But if there is zero curvature, in which direction 
will it move? That is, how is the direction of motion determined? TIA, AG

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c0590e54-8775-441e-be39-e7ea587650a2o%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Time travel in quantum computing

[Lawrence Crowell]

This looks interesting. There are relative time machines in QM, where one 
system may by virtue of its energy move faster or slower in time.

For a two-state system the string of binary outputs has Kolmogorov 
complexity 2^N. However, the quantum complexity is exp(2^N). for N = 4 the 
K-complexity is 15, but the quantum complexity is 8886110.52. This pertains 
to the possible phase structure that can exist. As a result much of the 
“butterfly effect” in QM or quantum chaos is in the phasor structure. 

With a black hole Alice can transform a set of states with an apparatus, so 
her EPR pair is transformed into a state to be transmitted. She sends these 
quantum states into her black hole and transmits this information to Bob 
who is facing a black hole entangled with Alice’s.  Bob then performs the 
operations according to Alice’s transmission and the states Alice sent in 
will appear in the quantum radiation of the BH. This is a form of 
teleportation via black hole. There is no reason why Alice might decide to 
transmit this information to Bob and wait a long time and send her EPR 
pairs into the BH long after Bob has received these instructions. Bob then 
quickly performs these operations and reconstructs Alice’s transmitted 
states long before, on his Hubble frame, before Alice transmitted them. 
Teleportation back in time is in principle possible with BHs.

The difference between the transmitted and received states are with the 
quantum phase, where the quantum complexity of Alice’s states are not 
constructible by Bob. The black hole as an Einstein-Rosen bridge is not 
traversable. A traversable black hole, which violates the Hawking-Penrose 
energy conditions, would allow for the duplication of a state. A 
traversable wormhole with one opening boosted to a near light speed frame 
and then back will have its clocks behind the first opening. Then 
transmitting a quantum state into the wormhole, means at an earlier time 
that state appears in the second opening so the experimenter for a time has 
a copy of the state. This is a process that is not unitary. This sort of 
problem does not happen with entangled black holes or ER bridges.

LC

On Thursday, July 30, 2020 at 6:02:43 AM UTC-5 cloud...@gmail.com wrote:

>
>
> https://newatlas.com/physics/quantum-time-travel-simulator-butterfly-effect/
>
>
> Recovery of Damaged Information and the Out-of-Time-Ordered Correlators
>
>
> https://arxiv.org/abs/2003.07267
>
> @philipthrift 
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ac64ce44-280d-44b9-8c69-ad9f2799229en%40googlegroups.com.

Time travel in quantum computing

[Philip Thrift]

https://newatlas.com/physics/quantum-time-travel-simulator-butterfly-effect/


Recovery of Damaged Information and the Out-of-Time-Ordered Correlators


https://arxiv.org/abs/2003.07267



@philipthrift 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/51eb99bb-65c1-42ab-8234-54dec0391519o%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Coordinate time vs Proper time

[Alan Grayson]

On Wednesday, May 27, 2020 at 9:18:40 AM UTC-6, smitra wrote:
>
> On 27-05-2020 11:07, Alan Grayson wrote: 
> > On Tuesday, May 26, 2020 at 6:24:32 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
> > 
> >> On 5/26/2020 6:49 AM, Alan Grayson wrote: 
> >> 
> >> On Tuesday, May 26, 2020 at 5:51:50 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: 
> >> 
> >> On Sunday, May 24, 2020 at 4:49:48 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
> >> 
> >> On 5/24/2020 11:21 AM, Alan Grayson wrote: 
> >> 
> >> On Sunday, May 24, 2020 at 8:51:35 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: 
> >> 
> >> On Saturday, May 23, 2020 at 12:06:33 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
> >> 
> >> On 5/22/2020 11:25 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: 
> >> 
> >> On Friday, May 22, 2020 at 11:03:40 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
> >> 
> >> On 5/22/2020 9:48 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: 
> >> 
> >> On Friday, May 22, 2020 at 9:05:23 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
> >> 
> >> On 5/22/2020 6:26 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: 
> >> 
> >> On Monday, May 18, 2020 at 3:28:40 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: 
> >> Suppose the universe is a hyper-sphere, not expanding, and an 
> >> observer travels on a closed loop and returns to his spatial 
> >> starting point. His elapsed or proper time will be finite, but what 
> >> is his coordinate time at the end of the journey?  TIA, AG 
> >> 
> >> It's not a dumb question IMO. If you circumnavigate a spherical 
> >> non-expanding universe, what happens to coordinate time at the end 
> >> of the journey? Does something update the time coordinate? Or does 
> >> it somehow miraculously(?) remain fixed? TIA, AG 
> > 
> > Are you supposing the universe is a 3-sphere?  In that case It's just 
> > like going around a circle.  The degree marks on the circle are 
> > coordinates, they have no physical meaning except to label points.  So 
> > if you walk around the circle you measure a certain distance (proper 
> > time) but come back to the same point. 
> > 
> > Or are you supposing it's a 4-sphere so that all geodesics are closed 
> > time-like curves?  I don't know how that would work.  I don't think 
> > there's any solution of that form to Einstein's equations. 
> > 
> > Brent 
> > 
> > I'm supposing a 4-sphere and (I think) closed time-like curves. The 
> > traveler returns presumably to his starting position, but is the time 
> > coordinate unchanged? AG 
> > 
> > I don't think there's any very sensible answer in that case.  Goedel 
> > showed there can be solutions with closed time-like curves if the 
> > universe is rotating.  But solutions of GR don't have any dynamic 
> > connection to matter and the entropy of matter.  In the same spirit 
> > there could be a solution to quantum field theory that was close 
> > around the time like curve...in which case you'd experience "Groundhog 
> > Day"...including your thoughts. 
> > 
> > Brent 
> > 
> > What does entropy have to do with this problem? AG 
> > 
> > Increasing entropy points the direction of time. 
> > 
> > Brent 
> > 
> > Let me pose the question another way: Is coordinate time ever updated? 
> > AG 
> > 
> > Or say, in the Twin Paradox, the elapsed or proper time for the 
> > traveling twin is less than for the Earth-bound twin, but when they 
> > meet, do they share the same coordinate time? AG 
> > 
> > Yes.  Coordinates are labels for points, so if you're together with 
> > your twin, you both are at the same point in spacetime and that point 
> > only has one label in any given coordinate system. 
> > 
> > Brent 
> > 
> > Since time is just ONE of the 4 labels for spacetime points, can they 
> > be assigned at random? What specific function do they satisfy? AG 
> > 
> > How is the time coordinate chosen such that the Lorentz distance 
> > between spacetime points is meaningful? AG 
> > 
> > The proper distance/duration is an invariant, it doesn't depend on the 
> > coordinate system. 
> > 
> > Brent 
> > 
> > I think the invariance of proper distance/duration a direct result of 
> > the Lorentz transformation, and is one of the results of SR. If that's 
> > the case, is it used in GR to derive EFE's? TIA, AG 
> > 
>
> The Lorentz transform results from demanding that ds^2 for a flat 
> space-time is an invariant. It's easy to derive this, as you know 
> rotations and translations leave the ordinary Euclidic metric invariant, 
> the relative minus sign between time and space

Re: Coordinate time vs Proper time

[smitra]

On 27-05-2020 11:07, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Tuesday, May 26, 2020 at 6:24:32 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:


On 5/26/2020 6:49 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Tuesday, May 26, 2020 at 5:51:50 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Sunday, May 24, 2020 at 4:49:48 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:

On 5/24/2020 11:21 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Sunday, May 24, 2020 at 8:51:35 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Saturday, May 23, 2020 at 12:06:33 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:

On 5/22/2020 11:25 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Friday, May 22, 2020 at 11:03:40 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:

On 5/22/2020 9:48 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Friday, May 22, 2020 at 9:05:23 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:

On 5/22/2020 6:26 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Monday, May 18, 2020 at 3:28:40 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
Suppose the universe is a hyper-sphere, not expanding, and an
observer travels on a closed loop and returns to his spatial
starting point. His elapsed or proper time will be finite, but what
is his coordinate time at the end of the journey?  TIA, AG

It's not a dumb question IMO. If you circumnavigate a spherical
non-expanding universe, what happens to coordinate time at the end
of the journey? Does something update the time coordinate? Or does
it somehow miraculously(?) remain fixed? TIA, AG


Are you supposing the universe is a 3-sphere?  In that case It's just
like going around a circle.  The degree marks on the circle are
coordinates, they have no physical meaning except to label points.  So
if you walk around the circle you measure a certain distance (proper
time) but come back to the same point.

Or are you supposing it's a 4-sphere so that all geodesics are closed
time-like curves?  I don't know how that would work.  I don't think
there's any solution of that form to Einstein's equations.

Brent

I'm supposing a 4-sphere and (I think) closed time-like curves. The
traveler returns presumably to his starting position, but is the time
coordinate unchanged? AG

I don't think there's any very sensible answer in that case.  Goedel
showed there can be solutions with closed time-like curves if the
universe is rotating.  But solutions of GR don't have any dynamic
connection to matter and the entropy of matter.  In the same spirit
there could be a solution to quantum field theory that was close
around the time like curve...in which case you'd experience "Groundhog
Day"...including your thoughts.

Brent

What does entropy have to do with this problem? AG

Increasing entropy points the direction of time.

Brent

Let me pose the question another way: Is coordinate time ever updated?
AG

Or say, in the Twin Paradox, the elapsed or proper time for the
traveling twin is less than for the Earth-bound twin, but when they
meet, do they share the same coordinate time? AG

Yes.  Coordinates are labels for points, so if you're together with
your twin, you both are at the same point in spacetime and that point
only has one label in any given coordinate system.

Brent

Since time is just ONE of the 4 labels for spacetime points, can they
be assigned at random? What specific function do they satisfy? AG

How is the time coordinate chosen such that the Lorentz distance
between spacetime points is meaningful? AG

The proper distance/duration is an invariant, it doesn't depend on the
coordinate system.

Brent

I think the invariance of proper distance/duration a direct result of
the Lorentz transformation, and is one of the results of SR. If that's
the case, is it used in GR to derive EFE's? TIA, AG



The Lorentz transform results from demanding that ds^2 for a flat 
space-time is an invariant. It's easy to derive this, as you know 
rotations and translations leave the ordinary Euclidic metric invariant, 
the relative minus sign between time and space means that instead of 
cos(theta) and sin(theta), you get cosh(theta) and sinh(theta) in 
transforms that mix time and space.


Saibal



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/f47553e151935882c3e10177ac3ef9cf%40zonnet.nl.

Re: Coordinate time vs Proper time

[Alan Grayson]

On Tuesday, May 26, 2020 at 6:24:32 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 5/26/2020 6:49 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, May 26, 2020 at 5:51:50 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, May 24, 2020 at 4:49:48 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 5/24/2020 11:21 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sunday, May 24, 2020 at 8:51:35 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Saturday, May 23, 2020 at 12:06:33 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 5/22/2020 11:25 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Friday, May 22, 2020 at 11:03:40 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/22/2020 9:48 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Friday, May 22, 2020 at 9:05:23 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 5/22/2020 6:26 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Monday, May 18, 2020 at 3:28:40 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: 
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Suppose the universe is a hyper-sphere, not expanding, and an 
>>>>>>>> observer travels on a closed loop and returns to his spatial starting 
>>>>>>>> point. His elapsed or proper time will be finite, but what is his 
>>>>>>>> coordinate time at the end of the journey?  TIA, AG
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's not a dumb question IMO. If you circumnavigate a spherical 
>>>>>>> non-expanding universe, what happens to coordinate time at the end of 
>>>>>>> the 
>>>>>>> journey? Does something update the time coordinate? Or does it somehow 
>>>>>>> miraculously(?) remain fixed? TIA, AG
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Are you supposing the universe is a 3-sphere?  In that case It's 
>>>>>>> just like going around a circle.  The degree marks on the circle are 
>>>>>>> coordinates, they have no physical meaning except to label points.  So 
>>>>>>> if 
>>>>>>> you walk around the circle you measure a certain distance (proper time) 
>>>>>>> but 
>>>>>>> come back to the same point.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Or are you supposing it's a 4-sphere so that all geodesics are 
>>>>>>> closed time-like curves?  I don't know how that would work.  I don't 
>>>>>>> think 
>>>>>>> there's any solution of that form to Einstein's equations.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Brent
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm supposing a 4-sphere and (I think) closed time-like curves. The 
>>>>>> traveler returns presumably to his starting position, but is the time 
>>>>>> coordinate unchanged? AG 
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't think there's any very sensible answer in that case.  Goedel 
>>>>>> showed there can be solutions with closed time-like curves if the 
>>>>>> universe 
>>>>>> is rotating.  But solutions of GR don't have any dynamic connection to 
>>>>>> matter and the entropy of matter.  In the same spirit there could be a 
>>>>>> solution to quantum field theory that was close around the time like 
>>>>>> curve...in which case you'd experience "Groundhog Day"...including your 
>>>>>> thoughts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Brent
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What does entropy have to do with this problem? AG 
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Increasing entropy points the direction of time.
>>>>>
>>>>> Brent
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Let me pose the question another way: Is coordinate time ever updated? 
>>>> AG 
>>>>
>>>
>>> Or say, in the Twin Paradox, the elapsed or proper time for the 
>>> traveling twin is less than for the Earth-bound twin, but when they meet, 
>>> do they share the same coordinate time? AG 
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes.  Coordinates are labels for points, so if you're together with your 
>>> twin, you both are at the same point in spacetime and that point only has 
>>> one label in any given coordinate system.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>> Since time is just ONE of the 4 labels for spacetime points, can they be 
>> assigned at random? What specific function do they satisfy? AG 
>>
>
> How is the time coordinate chosen such that the Lorentz distance between 
> spacetime points is meaningful? AG 
>
>
> The proper distance/duration is an invariant, it doesn't depend on the 
> coordinate system.
>
> Brent
>

I think the invariance of proper distance/duration a direct result of the 
Lorentz transformation, and is one of the results of SR. If that's the 
case, is it used in GR to derive EFE's? TIA, AG

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/12c1f33e-b75d-46c7-868f-f1a4faa19eb2%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Coordinate time vs Proper time

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 5/26/2020 6:49 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:



On Tuesday, May 26, 2020 at 5:51:50 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:



On Sunday, May 24, 2020 at 4:49:48 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:



On 5/24/2020 11:21 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:



On Sunday, May 24, 2020 at 8:51:35 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:



On Saturday, May 23, 2020 at 12:06:33 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:



On 5/22/2020 11:25 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:



On Friday, May 22, 2020 at 11:03:40 PM UTC-6, Brent
wrote:



On 5/22/2020 9:48 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:



On Friday, May 22, 2020 at 9:05:23 PM UTC-6,
Brent wrote:



On 5/22/2020 6:26 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:



On Monday, May 18, 2020 at 3:28:40 PM
UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:

Suppose the universe is a
hyper-sphere, not expanding, and an
observer travels on a closed loop and
returns to his spatial starting point.
His elapsed or proper time will be
finite, but what is his coordinate
time at the end of the journey?  TIA, AG


It's not a dumb question IMO. If you
circumnavigate a spherical non-expanding
universe, what happens to coordinate time
at the end of the journey? Does something
update the time coordinate? Or does it
somehow miraculously(?) remain fixed? TIA, AG


Are you supposing the universe is a
3-sphere?  In that case It's just like
going around a circle.  The degree marks on
the circle are coordinates, they have no
physical meaning except to label points. 
So if you walk around the circle you
measure a certain distance (proper time)
but come back to the same point.

Or are you supposing it's a 4-sphere so
that all geodesics are closed time-like
curves?  I don't know how that would work. 
I don't think there's any solution of that
form to Einstein's equations.

Brent


I'm supposing a 4-sphere and (I think) closed
time-like curves. The traveler returns
presumably to his starting position, but is the
time coordinate unchanged? AG


I don't think there's any very sensible answer
in that case. Goedel showed there can be
solutions with closed time-like curves if the
universe is rotating.  But solutions of GR don't
have any dynamic connection to matter and the
entropy of matter.  In the same spirit there
could be a solution to quantum field theory that
was close around the time like curve...in which
case you'd experience "Groundhog
Day"...including your thoughts.

Brent


What does entropy have to do with this problem? AG


Increasing entropy points the direction of time.

Brent


Let me pose the question another way: Is coordinate time
ever updated? AG


Or say, in the Twin Paradox, the elapsed or proper time for
the traveling twin is less than for the Earth-bound twin, but
when they meet, do they share the same coordinate time? AG


Yes.  Coordinates are labels for points, so if you're together
with your twin, you both are at the same point in spacetime
and that point only has one label in any given coordinate system.

Brent


Since time is just ONE of the 4 labels for spacetime points, can
they be assigned at random? What specific function do they
satisfy? AG


How is the time coordinate chosen such that the Lorentz distance 
between spacetime points is meaningful? AG


The proper distance/duration is an invariant, it doesn't depend on the 
coordinate system.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/7533e9aa-8c9a-842b-6f25-29ab4695e05d%40verizon.net.

Re: Coordinate time vs Proper time

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 5/26/2020 4:51 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:



On Sunday, May 24, 2020 at 4:49:48 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:



On 5/24/2020 11:21 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:



On Sunday, May 24, 2020 at 8:51:35 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:



On Saturday, May 23, 2020 at 12:06:33 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:



On 5/22/2020 11:25 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:



On Friday, May 22, 2020 at 11:03:40 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:



On 5/22/2020 9:48 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:



On Friday, May 22, 2020 at 9:05:23 PM UTC-6, Brent
wrote:



On 5/22/2020 6:26 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:



On Monday, May 18, 2020 at 3:28:40 PM UTC-6,
Alan Grayson wrote:

Suppose the universe is a hyper-sphere,
not expanding, and an observer travels on
a closed loop and returns to his spatial
starting point. His elapsed or proper time
will be finite, but what is his coordinate
time at the end of the journey? TIA, AG


It's not a dumb question IMO. If you
circumnavigate a spherical non-expanding
universe, what happens to coordinate time at
the end of the journey? Does something update
the time coordinate? Or does it somehow
miraculously(?) remain fixed? TIA, AG


Are you supposing the universe is a 3-sphere? 
In that case It's just like going around a
circle.  The degree marks on the circle are
coordinates, they have no physical meaning
except to label points.  So if you walk around
the circle you measure a certain distance
(proper time) but come back to the same point.

Or are you supposing it's a 4-sphere so that
all geodesics are closed time-like curves?  I
don't know how that would work. I don't think
there's any solution of that form to Einstein's
equations.

Brent


I'm supposing a 4-sphere and (I think) closed
time-like curves. The traveler returns presumably
to his starting position, but is the time
coordinate unchanged? AG


I don't think there's any very sensible answer in
that case.  Goedel showed there can be solutions
with closed time-like curves if the universe is
rotating.  But solutions of GR don't have any
dynamic connection to matter and the entropy of
matter.  In the same spirit there could be a
solution to quantum field theory that was close
around the time like curve...in which case you'd
experience "Groundhog Day"...including your thoughts.

Brent


What does entropy have to do with this problem? AG


Increasing entropy points the direction of time.

Brent


Let me pose the question another way: Is coordinate time ever
updated? AG


Or say, in the Twin Paradox, the elapsed or proper time for the
traveling twin is less than for the Earth-bound twin, but when
they meet, do they share the same coordinate time? AG


Yes.  Coordinates are labels for points, so if you're together
with your twin, you both are at the same point in spacetime and
that point only has one label in any given coordinate system.

Brent


Since time is just of the 4 labels for spacetime points, can they be 
assigned at random? What specific function do they satisfy? AG


They're not assigned at random because they need to form a locally 
smooth flat tangent space so that Einstein's equations will apply. And 
that's their function...they label in the points so that the equations 
apply and when you solve the equations you will know what value goes 
with what point.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d9a7d34b-a98c-f723-19db-50a59da0f686%40verizon.net.

Re: Coordinate time vs Proper time

[Alan Grayson]

On Tuesday, May 26, 2020 at 5:51:50 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, May 24, 2020 at 4:49:48 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 5/24/2020 11:21 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, May 24, 2020 at 8:51:35 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Saturday, May 23, 2020 at 12:06:33 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 5/22/2020 11:25 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Friday, May 22, 2020 at 11:03:40 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 5/22/2020 9:48 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Friday, May 22, 2020 at 9:05:23 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/22/2020 6:26 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Monday, May 18, 2020 at 3:28:40 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Suppose the universe is a hyper-sphere, not expanding, and an 
>>>>>>> observer travels on a closed loop and returns to his spatial starting 
>>>>>>> point. His elapsed or proper time will be finite, but what is his 
>>>>>>> coordinate time at the end of the journey?  TIA, AG
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's not a dumb question IMO. If you circumnavigate a spherical 
>>>>>> non-expanding universe, what happens to coordinate time at the end of 
>>>>>> the 
>>>>>> journey? Does something update the time coordinate? Or does it somehow 
>>>>>> miraculously(?) remain fixed? TIA, AG
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are you supposing the universe is a 3-sphere?  In that case It's just 
>>>>>> like going around a circle.  The degree marks on the circle are 
>>>>>> coordinates, they have no physical meaning except to label points.  So 
>>>>>> if 
>>>>>> you walk around the circle you measure a certain distance (proper time) 
>>>>>> but 
>>>>>> come back to the same point.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or are you supposing it's a 4-sphere so that all geodesics are closed 
>>>>>> time-like curves?  I don't know how that would work.  I don't think 
>>>>>> there's 
>>>>>> any solution of that form to Einstein's equations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Brent
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm supposing a 4-sphere and (I think) closed time-like curves. The 
>>>>> traveler returns presumably to his starting position, but is the time 
>>>>> coordinate unchanged? AG 
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think there's any very sensible answer in that case.  Goedel 
>>>>> showed there can be solutions with closed time-like curves if the 
>>>>> universe 
>>>>> is rotating.  But solutions of GR don't have any dynamic connection to 
>>>>> matter and the entropy of matter.  In the same spirit there could be a 
>>>>> solution to quantum field theory that was close around the time like 
>>>>> curve...in which case you'd experience "Groundhog Day"...including your 
>>>>> thoughts.
>>>>>
>>>>> Brent
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What does entropy have to do with this problem? AG 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Increasing entropy points the direction of time.
>>>>
>>>> Brent
>>>>
>>>
>>> Let me pose the question another way: Is coordinate time ever updated? 
>>> AG 
>>>
>>
>> Or say, in the Twin Paradox, the elapsed or proper time for the traveling 
>> twin is less than for the Earth-bound twin, but when they meet, do they 
>> share the same coordinate time? AG 
>>
>>
>> Yes.  Coordinates are labels for points, so if you're together with your 
>> twin, you both are at the same point in spacetime and that point only has 
>> one label in any given coordinate system.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> Since time is just ONE of the 4 labels for spacetime points, can they be 
> assigned at random? What specific function do they satisfy? AG 
>

How is the time coordinate chosen such that the Lorentz distance between 
spacetime points is meaningful? AG 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9932d47e-58c0-47a6-9ce9-24f786f8c168%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Coordinate time vs Proper time

[Alan Grayson]

On Sunday, May 24, 2020 at 4:49:48 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 5/24/2020 11:21 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, May 24, 2020 at 8:51:35 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, May 23, 2020 at 12:06:33 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 5/22/2020 11:25 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Friday, May 22, 2020 at 11:03:40 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 5/22/2020 9:48 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Friday, May 22, 2020 at 9:05:23 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 5/22/2020 6:26 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Monday, May 18, 2020 at 3:28:40 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Suppose the universe is a hyper-sphere, not expanding, and an 
>>>>>> observer travels on a closed loop and returns to his spatial starting 
>>>>>> point. His elapsed or proper time will be finite, but what is his 
>>>>>> coordinate time at the end of the journey?  TIA, AG
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It's not a dumb question IMO. If you circumnavigate a spherical 
>>>>> non-expanding universe, what happens to coordinate time at the end of the 
>>>>> journey? Does something update the time coordinate? Or does it somehow 
>>>>> miraculously(?) remain fixed? TIA, AG
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you supposing the universe is a 3-sphere?  In that case It's just 
>>>>> like going around a circle.  The degree marks on the circle are 
>>>>> coordinates, they have no physical meaning except to label points.  So if 
>>>>> you walk around the circle you measure a certain distance (proper time) 
>>>>> but 
>>>>> come back to the same point.
>>>>>
>>>>> Or are you supposing it's a 4-sphere so that all geodesics are closed 
>>>>> time-like curves?  I don't know how that would work.  I don't think 
>>>>> there's 
>>>>> any solution of that form to Einstein's equations.
>>>>>
>>>>> Brent
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm supposing a 4-sphere and (I think) closed time-like curves. The 
>>>> traveler returns presumably to his starting position, but is the time 
>>>> coordinate unchanged? AG 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't think there's any very sensible answer in that case.  Goedel 
>>>> showed there can be solutions with closed time-like curves if the universe 
>>>> is rotating.  But solutions of GR don't have any dynamic connection to 
>>>> matter and the entropy of matter.  In the same spirit there could be a 
>>>> solution to quantum field theory that was close around the time like 
>>>> curve...in which case you'd experience "Groundhog Day"...including your 
>>>> thoughts.
>>>>
>>>> Brent
>>>>
>>>
>>> What does entropy have to do with this problem? AG 
>>>
>>>
>>> Increasing entropy points the direction of time.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>> Let me pose the question another way: Is coordinate time ever updated? AG 
>>
>
> Or say, in the Twin Paradox, the elapsed or proper time for the traveling 
> twin is less than for the Earth-bound twin, but when they meet, do they 
> share the same coordinate time? AG 
>
>
> Yes.  Coordinates are labels for points, so if you're together with your 
> twin, you both are at the same point in spacetime and that point only has 
> one label in any given coordinate system.
>
> Brent
>

Since time is just of the 4 labels for spacetime points, can they be 
assigned at random? What specific function do they satisfy? AG 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c7ccdfaf-cf9f-425e-863e-8491dddeb69c%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Coordinate time vs Proper time

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 5/24/2020 11:21 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:



On Sunday, May 24, 2020 at 8:51:35 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:



On Saturday, May 23, 2020 at 12:06:33 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:



On 5/22/2020 11:25 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:



On Friday, May 22, 2020 at 11:03:40 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:



On 5/22/2020 9:48 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:



On Friday, May 22, 2020 at 9:05:23 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:



On 5/22/2020 6:26 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:



On Monday, May 18, 2020 at 3:28:40 PM UTC-6, Alan
Grayson wrote:

Suppose the universe is a hyper-sphere, not
expanding, and an observer travels on a closed
loop and returns to his spatial starting point.
His elapsed or proper time will be finite, but
what is his coordinate time at the end of the
journey?  TIA, AG


It's not a dumb question IMO. If you circumnavigate
a spherical non-expanding universe, what happens to
coordinate time at the end of the journey? Does
something update the time coordinate? Or does it
somehow miraculously(?) remain fixed? TIA, AG


Are you supposing the universe is a 3-sphere?  In
that case It's just like going around a circle.  The
degree marks on the circle are coordinates, they
have no physical meaning except to label points.  So
if you walk around the circle you measure a certain
distance (proper time) but come back to the same point.

Or are you supposing it's a 4-sphere so that all
geodesics are closed time-like curves?  I don't know
how that would work.  I don't think there's any
solution of that form to Einstein's equations.

Brent


I'm supposing a 4-sphere and (I think) closed time-like
curves. The traveler returns presumably to his starting
position, but is the time coordinate unchanged? AG


I don't think there's any very sensible answer in that
case.  Goedel showed there can be solutions with closed
time-like curves if the universe is rotating.  But
solutions of GR don't have any dynamic connection to
matter and the entropy of matter.  In the same spirit
there could be a solution to quantum field theory that
was close around the time like curve...in which case
you'd experience "Groundhog Day"...including your thoughts.

Brent


What does entropy have to do with this problem? AG


Increasing entropy points the direction of time.

Brent


Let me pose the question another way: Is coordinate time ever
updated? AG


Or say, in the Twin Paradox, the elapsed or proper time for the 
traveling twin is less than for the Earth-bound twin, but when they 
meet, do they share the same coordinate time? AG


Yes.  Coordinates are labels for points, so if you're together with your 
twin, you both are at the same point in spacetime and that point only 
has one label in any given coordinate system.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/b911988a-541f-6dee-0e40-1b9b2eaf8547%40verizon.net.

Re: Coordinate time vs Proper time

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 5/24/2020 7:51 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:



On Saturday, May 23, 2020 at 12:06:33 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:



On 5/22/2020 11:25 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:



On Friday, May 22, 2020 at 11:03:40 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:



On 5/22/2020 9:48 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:



On Friday, May 22, 2020 at 9:05:23 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:



On 5/22/2020 6:26 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:



On Monday, May 18, 2020 at 3:28:40 PM UTC-6, Alan
Grayson wrote:

Suppose the universe is a hyper-sphere, not
expanding, and an observer travels on a closed loop
and returns to his spatial starting point. His
elapsed or proper time will be finite, but what is
his coordinate time at the end of the journey?  TIA, AG


It's not a dumb question IMO. If you circumnavigate a
spherical non-expanding universe, what happens to
coordinate time at the end of the journey? Does
something update the time coordinate? Or does it
somehow miraculously(?) remain fixed? TIA, AG


Are you supposing the universe is a 3-sphere?  In that
case It's just like going around a circle.  The degree
marks on the circle are coordinates, they have no
physical meaning except to label points.  So if you walk
around the circle you measure a certain distance (proper
time) but come back to the same point.

Or are you supposing it's a 4-sphere so that all
geodesics are closed time-like curves? I don't know how
that would work.  I don't think there's any solution of
that form to Einstein's equations.

Brent


I'm supposing a 4-sphere and (I think) closed time-like
curves. The traveler returns presumably to his starting
position, but is the time coordinate unchanged? AG


I don't think there's any very sensible answer in that case. 
Goedel showed there can be solutions with closed time-like
curves if the universe is rotating.  But solutions of GR
don't have any dynamic connection to matter and the entropy
of matter.  In the same spirit there could be a solution to
quantum field theory that was close around the time like
curve...in which case you'd experience "Groundhog
Day"...including your thoughts.

Brent


What does entropy have to do with this problem? AG


Increasing entropy points the direction of time.

Brent


Let me pose the question another way: Is coordinate time ever updated? AG


In general relativity points are labelled by coordinates which locally 
smooth functions that define a Reimannian space.  You can change them to 
whatever you want whenever you want.  They are just labels.  I'm not 
sure what "update" means in this context.  Physical time is measured by 
clocks, and they measure proper time along their world lines.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/07acff59-c525-a47a-d81f-a904a5aa08bf%40verizon.net.

Re: Coordinate time vs Proper time

[Alan Grayson]

On Sunday, May 24, 2020 at 8:51:35 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, May 23, 2020 at 12:06:33 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 5/22/2020 11:25 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, May 22, 2020 at 11:03:40 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 5/22/2020 9:48 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Friday, May 22, 2020 at 9:05:23 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 5/22/2020 6:26 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Monday, May 18, 2020 at 3:28:40 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: 
>>>>>
>>>>> Suppose the universe is a hyper-sphere, not expanding, and an observer 
>>>>> travels on a closed loop and returns to his spatial starting point. His 
>>>>> elapsed or proper time will be finite, but what is his coordinate time at 
>>>>> the end of the journey?  TIA, AG
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's not a dumb question IMO. If you circumnavigate a spherical 
>>>> non-expanding universe, what happens to coordinate time at the end of the 
>>>> journey? Does something update the time coordinate? Or does it somehow 
>>>> miraculously(?) remain fixed? TIA, AG
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Are you supposing the universe is a 3-sphere?  In that case It's just 
>>>> like going around a circle.  The degree marks on the circle are 
>>>> coordinates, they have no physical meaning except to label points.  So if 
>>>> you walk around the circle you measure a certain distance (proper time) 
>>>> but 
>>>> come back to the same point.
>>>>
>>>> Or are you supposing it's a 4-sphere so that all geodesics are closed 
>>>> time-like curves?  I don't know how that would work.  I don't think 
>>>> there's 
>>>> any solution of that form to Einstein's equations.
>>>>
>>>> Brent
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm supposing a 4-sphere and (I think) closed time-like curves. The 
>>> traveler returns presumably to his starting position, but is the time 
>>> coordinate unchanged? AG 
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't think there's any very sensible answer in that case.  Goedel 
>>> showed there can be solutions with closed time-like curves if the universe 
>>> is rotating.  But solutions of GR don't have any dynamic connection to 
>>> matter and the entropy of matter.  In the same spirit there could be a 
>>> solution to quantum field theory that was close around the time like 
>>> curve...in which case you'd experience "Groundhog Day"...including your 
>>> thoughts.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>> What does entropy have to do with this problem? AG 
>>
>>
>> Increasing entropy points the direction of time.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> Let me pose the question another way: Is coordinate time ever updated? AG 
>

Or say, in the Twin Paradox, the elapsed or proper time for the traveling 
twin is less than for the Earth-bound twin, but when they meet, do they 
share the same coordinate time? AG 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e088511a-c838-458b-8913-7767de0bda9a%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Coordinate time vs Proper time

[Alan Grayson]

On Saturday, May 23, 2020 at 12:06:33 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 5/22/2020 11:25 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, May 22, 2020 at 11:03:40 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 5/22/2020 9:48 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, May 22, 2020 at 9:05:23 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 5/22/2020 6:26 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Monday, May 18, 2020 at 3:28:40 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: 
>>>>
>>>> Suppose the universe is a hyper-sphere, not expanding, and an observer 
>>>> travels on a closed loop and returns to his spatial starting point. His 
>>>> elapsed or proper time will be finite, but what is his coordinate time at 
>>>> the end of the journey?  TIA, AG
>>>>
>>>
>>> It's not a dumb question IMO. If you circumnavigate a spherical 
>>> non-expanding universe, what happens to coordinate time at the end of the 
>>> journey? Does something update the time coordinate? Or does it somehow 
>>> miraculously(?) remain fixed? TIA, AG
>>>
>>>
>>> Are you supposing the universe is a 3-sphere?  In that case It's just 
>>> like going around a circle.  The degree marks on the circle are 
>>> coordinates, they have no physical meaning except to label points.  So if 
>>> you walk around the circle you measure a certain distance (proper time) but 
>>> come back to the same point.
>>>
>>> Or are you supposing it's a 4-sphere so that all geodesics are closed 
>>> time-like curves?  I don't know how that would work.  I don't think there's 
>>> any solution of that form to Einstein's equations.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>> I'm supposing a 4-sphere and (I think) closed time-like curves. The 
>> traveler returns presumably to his starting position, but is the time 
>> coordinate unchanged? AG 
>>
>>
>> I don't think there's any very sensible answer in that case.  Goedel 
>> showed there can be solutions with closed time-like curves if the universe 
>> is rotating.  But solutions of GR don't have any dynamic connection to 
>> matter and the entropy of matter.  In the same spirit there could be a 
>> solution to quantum field theory that was close around the time like 
>> curve...in which case you'd experience "Groundhog Day"...including your 
>> thoughts.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> What does entropy have to do with this problem? AG 
>
>
> Increasing entropy points the direction of time.
>
> Brent
>

Let me pose the question another way: Is coordinate time ever updated? AG 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1703af8d-eebd-4ac5-8ffc-172aa6936a1d%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Coordinate time vs Proper time

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 5/22/2020 11:25 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:



On Friday, May 22, 2020 at 11:03:40 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:



On 5/22/2020 9:48 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:



On Friday, May 22, 2020 at 9:05:23 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:



On 5/22/2020 6:26 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:



On Monday, May 18, 2020 at 3:28:40 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson
wrote:

Suppose the universe is a hyper-sphere, not expanding,
and an observer travels on a closed loop and returns to
his spatial starting point. His elapsed or proper time
will be finite, but what is his coordinate time at the
end of the journey? TIA, AG


It's not a dumb question IMO. If you circumnavigate a
spherical non-expanding universe, what happens to coordinate
time at the end of the journey? Does something update the
time coordinate? Or does it somehow miraculously(?) remain
fixed? TIA, AG


Are you supposing the universe is a 3-sphere?  In that case
It's just like going around a circle.  The degree marks on
the circle are coordinates, they have no physical meaning
except to label points.  So if you walk around the circle you
measure a certain distance (proper time) but come back to the
same point.

Or are you supposing it's a 4-sphere so that all geodesics
are closed time-like curves?  I don't know how that would
work.  I don't think there's any solution of that form to
Einstein's equations.

Brent


I'm supposing a 4-sphere and (I think) closed time-like curves.
The traveler returns presumably to his starting position, but is
the time coordinate unchanged? AG


I don't think there's any very sensible answer in that case. 
Goedel showed there can be solutions with closed time-like curves
if the universe is rotating.  But solutions of GR don't have any
dynamic connection to matter and the entropy of matter.  In the
same spirit there could be a solution to quantum field theory that
was close around the time like curve...in which case you'd
experience "Groundhog Day"...including your thoughts.

Brent


What does entropy have to do with this problem? AG


Increasing entropy points the direction of time.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/f6af2198-4349-09bc-00f6-a219700f8997%40verizon.net.

Re: Coordinate time vs Proper time

[Alan Grayson]

On Friday, May 22, 2020 at 11:03:40 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 5/22/2020 9:48 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, May 22, 2020 at 9:05:23 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 5/22/2020 6:26 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, May 18, 2020 at 3:28:40 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: 
>>>
>>> Suppose the universe is a hyper-sphere, not expanding, and an observer 
>>> travels on a closed loop and returns to his spatial starting point. His 
>>> elapsed or proper time will be finite, but what is his coordinate time at 
>>> the end of the journey?  TIA, AG
>>>
>>
>> It's not a dumb question IMO. If you circumnavigate a spherical 
>> non-expanding universe, what happens to coordinate time at the end of the 
>> journey? Does something update the time coordinate? Or does it somehow 
>> miraculously(?) remain fixed? TIA, AG
>>
>>
>> Are you supposing the universe is a 3-sphere?  In that case It's just 
>> like going around a circle.  The degree marks on the circle are 
>> coordinates, they have no physical meaning except to label points.  So if 
>> you walk around the circle you measure a certain distance (proper time) but 
>> come back to the same point.
>>
>> Or are you supposing it's a 4-sphere so that all geodesics are closed 
>> time-like curves?  I don't know how that would work.  I don't think there's 
>> any solution of that form to Einstein's equations.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> I'm supposing a 4-sphere and (I think) closed time-like curves. The 
> traveler returns presumably to his starting position, but is the time 
> coordinate unchanged? AG 
>
>
> I don't think there's any very sensible answer in that case.  Goedel 
> showed there can be solutions with closed time-like curves if the universe 
> is rotating.  But solutions of GR don't have any dynamic connection to 
> matter and the entropy of matter.  In the same spirit there could be a 
> solution to quantum field theory that was close around the time like 
> curve...in which case you'd experience "Groundhog Day"...including your 
> thoughts.
>
> Brent
>

What does entropy have to do with this problem? AG 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/15978588-5667-40eb-bf37-8c2e23aa8655%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Coordinate time vs Proper time

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 5/22/2020 9:48 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:



On Friday, May 22, 2020 at 9:05:23 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:



On 5/22/2020 6:26 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:



On Monday, May 18, 2020 at 3:28:40 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:

Suppose the universe is a hyper-sphere, not expanding, and an
observer travels on a closed loop and returns to his spatial
starting point. His elapsed or proper time will be finite,
but what is his coordinate time at the end of the journey? 
TIA, AG


It's not a dumb question IMO. If you circumnavigate a spherical
non-expanding universe, what happens to coordinate time at the
end of the journey? Does something update the time coordinate? Or
does it somehow miraculously(?) remain fixed? TIA, AG


Are you supposing the universe is a 3-sphere?  In that case It's
just like going around a circle.  The degree marks on the circle
are coordinates, they have no physical meaning except to label
points.  So if you walk around the circle you measure a certain
distance (proper time) but come back to the same point.

Or are you supposing it's a 4-sphere so that all geodesics are
closed time-like curves?  I don't know how that would work.  I
don't think there's any solution of that form to Einstein's equations.

Brent


I'm supposing a 4-sphere and (I think) closed time-like curves. The 
traveler returns presumably to his starting position, but is the time 
coordinate unchanged? AG


I don't think there's any very sensible answer in that case.  Goedel 
showed there can be solutions with closed time-like curves if the 
universe is rotating.  But solutions of GR don't have any dynamic 
connection to matter and the entropy of matter.  In the same spirit 
there could be a solution to quantum field theory that was close around 
the time like curve...in which case you'd experience "Groundhog 
Day"...including your thoughts.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/f99e0d54-ac98-ac38-1783-f6eb225fb642%40verizon.net.

Re: Coordinate time vs Proper time

[Alan Grayson]

On Friday, May 22, 2020 at 9:05:23 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 5/22/2020 6:26 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, May 18, 2020 at 3:28:40 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: 
>>
>> Suppose the universe is a hyper-sphere, not expanding, and an observer 
>> travels on a closed loop and returns to his spatial starting point. His 
>> elapsed or proper time will be finite, but what is his coordinate time at 
>> the end of the journey?  TIA, AG
>>
>
> It's not a dumb question IMO. If you circumnavigate a spherical 
> non-expanding universe, what happens to coordinate time at the end of the 
> journey? Does something update the time coordinate? Or does it somehow 
> miraculously(?) remain fixed? TIA, AG
>
>
> Are you supposing the universe is a 3-sphere?  In that case It's just like 
> going around a circle.  The degree marks on the circle are coordinates, 
> they have no physical meaning except to label points.  So if you walk 
> around the circle you measure a certain distance (proper time) but come 
> back to the same point.
>
> Or are you supposing it's a 4-sphere so that all geodesics are closed 
> time-like curves?  I don't know how that would work.  I don't think there's 
> any solution of that form to Einstein's equations.
>
> Brent
>

I'm supposing a 4-sphere and (I think) closed time-like curves. The 
traveler returns presumably to his starting position, but is the time 
coordinate unchanged? AG 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/942bdc36-7cb7-4103-a696-75d2d39cacf8%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Coordinate time vs Proper time

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 5/22/2020 6:26 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:



On Monday, May 18, 2020 at 3:28:40 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:

Suppose the universe is a hyper-sphere, not expanding, and an
observer travels on a closed loop and returns to his spatial
starting point. His elapsed or proper time will be finite, but
what is his coordinate time at the end of the journey?  TIA, AG


It's not a dumb question IMO. If you circumnavigate a spherical 
non-expanding universe, what happens to coordinate time at the end of 
the journey? Does something update the time coordinate? Or does it 
somehow miraculously(?) remain fixed? TIA, AG


Are you supposing the universe is a 3-sphere?  In that case It's just 
like going around a circle.  The degree marks on the circle are 
coordinates, they have no physical meaning except to label points. So if 
you walk around the circle you measure a certain distance (proper time) 
but come back to the same point.


Or are you supposing it's a 4-sphere so that all geodesics are closed 
time-like curves?  I don't know how that would work.  I don't think 
there's any solution of that form to Einstein's equations.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/fe1152bc-491e-f498-f247-7913d0ebc0a9%40verizon.net.

Re: Coordinate time vs Proper time

[Alan Grayson]

On Monday, May 18, 2020 at 3:28:40 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
> Suppose the universe is a hyper-sphere, not expanding, and an observer 
> travels on a closed loop and returns to his spatial starting point. His 
> elapsed or proper time will be finite, but what is his coordinate time at 
> the end of the journey?  TIA, AG
>

It's not a dumb question IMO. If you circumnavigate a spherical 
non-expanding universe, what happens to coordinate time at the end of the 
journey? Does something update the time coordinate? Or does it somehow 
miraculously(?) remain fixed? TIA, AG 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5ca81018-30c8-459c-a543-a6bd6ddf646b%40googlegroups.com.

Coordinate time vs Proper time

[Alan Grayson]

Suppose the universe is a hyper-sphere, not expanding, and an observer 
travels on a closed loop and returns to his spatial starting point. His 
elapsed or proper time will be finite, but what is his coordinate time at 
the end of the journey?  TIA, AG

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/7a62be0e-3536-4037-b1ba-a2e22c43f6f2%40googlegroups.com.

Re: "Proof" of time-energy form of HUP -- anything awry here?

[Alan Grayson]

On Monday, May 4, 2020 at 10:21:09 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, May 3, 2020 at 5:36:34 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, May 3, 2020 at 7:51:49 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.google.com/search?q=time-energy+uncertainty+principle+derivation=1C1CHBF_enUS878US878=isch=iu=1=PjREgSqrhN_VwM%253A%252CzJ-juHz9_B7uxM%252C_=1=AI4_-kSgX8i7G1G5mvD-eKkPmWv9XPhMmg=X=2ahUKEwjKqtvSnJfpAhWabc0KHTWPC7IQ_h0wAHoECAYQBA#imgrc=JW1KwbviSVmcFM
>>>
>>
>> Clark, let me help. This "proof" has a fatal flaw. Do you know what it 
>> is? AG 
>>
>
> It's the fifth proof to the right in row 1. AG 
>

Clark; when you understand what's wrong with the derivation, you will gain 
significant understanding of the proper interpretation of the UP. But maybe 
you're not interested. AG 

>  
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/cb7806d5-4cf8-452d-8e93-0d9330facfb4%40googlegroups.com.

Re: "Proof" of time-energy form of HUP -- anything awry here?

[Alan Grayson]

On Sunday, May 3, 2020 at 5:36:34 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, May 3, 2020 at 7:51:49 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>> https://www.google.com/search?q=time-energy+uncertainty+principle+derivation=1C1CHBF_enUS878US878=isch=iu=1=PjREgSqrhN_VwM%253A%252CzJ-juHz9_B7uxM%252C_=1=AI4_-kSgX8i7G1G5mvD-eKkPmWv9XPhMmg=X=2ahUKEwjKqtvSnJfpAhWabc0KHTWPC7IQ_h0wAHoECAYQBA#imgrc=JW1KwbviSVmcFM
>>
>
> Clark, let me help. This "proof" has a fatal flaw. Do you know what it is? 
> AG 
>

It's the fifth proof to the right in row 1. AG  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1060bdb9-db3e-4ba7-b464-a195f5644964%40googlegroups.com.

Re: "Proof" of time-energy form of HUP -- anything awry here?

[Alan Grayson]

On Sunday, May 3, 2020 at 7:51:49 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
> https://www.google.com/search?q=time-energy+uncertainty+principle+derivation=1C1CHBF_enUS878US878=isch=iu=1=PjREgSqrhN_VwM%253A%252CzJ-juHz9_B7uxM%252C_=1=AI4_-kSgX8i7G1G5mvD-eKkPmWv9XPhMmg=X=2ahUKEwjKqtvSnJfpAhWabc0KHTWPC7IQ_h0wAHoECAYQBA#imgrc=JW1KwbviSVmcFM
>

Clark, let me help. This "proof" has a fatal flaw. Do you know what it is? 
AG 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4771ebe3-36ac-4407-957d-8bf0233cc251%40googlegroups.com.

"Proof" of time-energy form of HUP -- anything awry here?

[Alan Grayson]

https://www.google.com/search?q=time-energy+uncertainty+principle+derivation=1C1CHBF_enUS878US878=isch=iu=1=PjREgSqrhN_VwM%253A%252CzJ-juHz9_B7uxM%252C_=1=AI4_-kSgX8i7G1G5mvD-eKkPmWv9XPhMmg=X=2ahUKEwjKqtvSnJfpAhWabc0KHTWPC7IQ_h0wAHoECAYQBA#imgrc=JW1KwbviSVmcFM

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6838d85d-add4-4b90-a7a8-eedce6c52103%40googlegroups.com.

Re: MWI and time

[Eva]

Thank you! I have to admit that I like this interpretation. Some people say 
that it even explain cosmological fine-tunning

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/55d86de7-1d04-4707-9af7-1479810160af%40googlegroups.com.

Re: MWI and time

[Jason Resch]

Hi Eva,

The founder of this list published an interpretation of QM that embodies
both timelessness and many worlds.

He calls it: "a really simple interpretation of quantum mechanics":

http://www.weidai.com/qm-interpretation.txt

So I think you are right it isn't needed in any objective sense. As far as
why we experience it, I think the reason is thermodynamics. It takes energy
to process and record information (Landauer's Limit) and since energy can
only be expended in one direction of time, information processing systems
like life and brains evolved to process and record information as soon as
it was able to (moving through the present from the past, and into the
future). But this feeling is a subjective illusion.

Jason


On Thursday, April 23, 2020, Eva  wrote:

> Hello guys :) what do you think about time in many world interpretation?
> If there is one changless global wave function, than why we have change at
> all?
>
> All these states, different branches which emerge or are incribed in
> global wave, are not changless - we experience change.
>
> Why?
>
> Is it because they are relative?
>
> If so, everything which is relative is transitory?
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/
> msgid/everything-list/0411c43f-8408-4bd3-80e5-d5b442712a09%40googlegroups.
> com.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUi-JbQz1AT_bzC_zcQswEcwWm%2B3hPb_rYrcGkY0p0K-ZQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: MWI and time

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Thursday, April 23, 2020 at 2:21:48 PM UTC-5, Eva wrote:
>
> Hello guys :) what do you think about time in many world interpretation?
> If there is one changless global wave function, than why we have change at 
> all?
>
> All these states, different branches which emerge or are incribed in 
> global wave, are not changless - we experience change.
>
> Why?
>
> Is it because they are relative? 
>
> If so, everything which is relative is transitory?
>

In MWI there is the global wave function, and with respect to any 
observer's measurement outcome this is manifested by a projector that 
reduces observed state of the quantum system. The time any observer records 
on their clock would then be the same as the global time. Things only get a 
bit odd when we consider different eigen-branching of the system are in 
different regions of gravity so they have different proper times. 

LC 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/3e821981-775e-46a8-8929-d50cd692e395%40googlegroups.com.

MWI and time

[Eva]

Hello guys :) what do you think about time in many world interpretation?
If there is one changless global wave function, than why we have change at all?

All these states, different branches which emerge or are incribed in global 
wave, are not changless - we experience change.

Why?

Is it because they are relative? 

If so, everything which is relative is transitory?

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0411c43f-8408-4bd3-80e5-d5b442712a09%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Position-Momentum vs. Time-Energy Uncertainty

[Alan Grayson]

On Wednesday, April 15, 2020 at 11:59:00 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 4/15/2020 10:37 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, April 15, 2020 at 10:49:45 AM UTC-6, smitra wrote: 
>>
>> On 15-04-2020 04:20, Alan Grayson wrote: 
>> > On Tuesday, April 14, 2020 at 4:28:23 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: 
>> > 
>> >> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 2:07 AM Jason Resch  
>> >> wrote: 
>> >> 
>> >>> There has been controversy [1] in the meaning/interpretation of 
>> >>> the Time-Energy uncertainty relation in quantum mechanics, but 
>> >>> relatively none regarding the meaning of the position-momentum 
>> >>> uncertainty. 
>> >>> 
>> >>> However, can these not be viewed equivalently in terms of a 
>> >>> 4-dimensional space time? 
>> >>> 
>> >>> For example, I have seen some describe mass/energy as momentum 
>> >>> through time. Massless particles don't age, and have no momentum 
>> >>> through time. 
>> >>> 
>> >>> Similarly, cannot a point-in-time measurement be viewed as a 
>> >>> measurement of position in the time dimension? 
>> >>> 
>> >>> In my view, you can go from the position-momentum uncertainty to 
>> >>> the time-energy uncertainty simply by flipping the time-space 
>> >>> orientation. Is this valid? Is there something I am missing? 
>> >> 
>> >> You are missing the fact that energy is bounded below, whereas 
>> >> momentum can take on any value between plus and minus infinity. Time 
>> >> is not an operator in quantum mechanics. 
>> >> 
>> >> Bruce 
>> > 
>> > Isn't there a valid interpretation/ application of the time-energy 
>> > uncertainty relation in the context of emission of radiation? If so, 
>> > what is it? TIA, AG 
>> > 
>> The rigorous versions of these interpretations involve having some 
>> physical object included in the system that serves as a clock. So, if 
>> you actually perform a measurement involving time, then the measured 
>> time is represented by a physical clock. So, by including a quantum 
>> mechanical description of a simplified model clock, you then do get an 
>> observable for the measured time, despite the fact that there is no 
>> observable that allows you to measure the parameter t in the Schrodinger 
>> equation. 
>>
>> Saibal 
>>
>
> Can you give a concrete example where the time-energy form of the UP can 
> be applied to? I once had an example, but can't recall what it was. TIA, AG
>
>
> It's used all the time in interpreting collision spectra in particle 
> physics.  A sharp resonant line in the energy spectrum implies the 
> generation of a long live particle, while a broad line implies a short 
> lifetime.
>
> Brent
>

If time isn't an operator, why does this work? And I'm not sure how to 
interpret it physically. If one waits some time t, and measures in some 
interval t, t + delta t, do we get a spread of energies? And of what? TIA, 
AG

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2986747a-b89f-4854-bfe4-c75d16ef90c0%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Position-Momentum vs. Time-Energy Uncertainty

[Bruce Kellett]

On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 3:59 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> On 4/15/2020 10:37 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
> Can you give a concrete example where the time-energy form of the UP can
> be applied to? I once had an example, but can't recall what it was. TIA, AG
>
>
> It's used all the time in interpreting collision spectra in particle
> physics.  A sharp resonant line in the energy spectrum implies the
> generation of a long live particle, while a broad line implies a short
> lifetime.
>


But that is applying a generalised UP to an ensemble of similar short-lived
particles. There is no significant uncertainty in the energy of each
particle, although it may be uncertain when it will decay.

Bruce

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLRk-UFkr0-jxU3rzfq5wt0tNafjOepnXARMvp2okmfg4A%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Position-Momentum vs. Time-Energy Uncertainty

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 4/15/2020 10:37 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:



On Wednesday, April 15, 2020 at 10:49:45 AM UTC-6, smitra wrote:

On 15-04-2020 04:20, Alan Grayson wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 14, 2020 at 4:28:23 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 2:07 AM Jason Resch 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> There has been controversy [1] in the meaning/interpretation of
>>> the Time-Energy uncertainty relation in quantum mechanics, but
>>> relatively none regarding the meaning of the position-momentum
>>> uncertainty.
>>>
>>> However, can these not be viewed equivalently in terms of a
>>> 4-dimensional space time?
>>>
>>> For example, I have seen some describe mass/energy as momentum
>>> through time. Massless particles don't age, and have no momentum
>>> through time.
>>>
>>> Similarly, cannot a point-in-time measurement be viewed as a
>>> measurement of position in the time dimension?
>>>
>>> In my view, you can go from the position-momentum uncertainty to
>>> the time-energy uncertainty simply by flipping the time-space
>>> orientation. Is this valid? Is there something I am missing?
>>
>> You are missing the fact that energy is bounded below, whereas
>> momentum can take on any value between plus and minus infinity.
Time
>> is not an operator in quantum mechanics.
>>
>> Bruce
>
> Isn't there a valid interpretation/ application of the time-energy
> uncertainty relation in the context of emission of radiation? If
    so,
> what is it? TIA, AG
>
The rigorous versions of these interpretations involve having some
physical object included in the system that serves as a clock. So, if
you actually perform a measurement involving time, then the measured
time is represented by a physical clock. So, by including a quantum
mechanical description of a simplified model clock, you then do
    get an
observable for the measured time, despite the fact that there is no
observable that allows you to measure the parameter t in the
Schrodinger
equation.

Saibal


Can you give a concrete example where the time-energy form of the UP 
can be applied to? I once had an example, but can't recall what it 
was. TIA, AG


It's used all the time in interpreting collision spectra in particle 
physics.  A sharp resonant line in the energy spectrum implies the 
generation of a long live particle, while a broad line implies a short 
lifetime.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a762c451-4472-93b7-2a9f-aa99234d1929%40verizon.net.

Re: Position-Momentum vs. Time-Energy Uncertainty

[Alan Grayson]

On Wednesday, April 15, 2020 at 10:49:45 AM UTC-6, smitra wrote:
>
> On 15-04-2020 04:20, Alan Grayson wrote: 
> > On Tuesday, April 14, 2020 at 4:28:23 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: 
> > 
> >> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 2:07 AM Jason Resch  
> >> wrote: 
> >> 
> >>> There has been controversy [1] in the meaning/interpretation of 
> >>> the Time-Energy uncertainty relation in quantum mechanics, but 
> >>> relatively none regarding the meaning of the position-momentum 
> >>> uncertainty. 
> >>> 
> >>> However, can these not be viewed equivalently in terms of a 
> >>> 4-dimensional space time? 
> >>> 
> >>> For example, I have seen some describe mass/energy as momentum 
> >>> through time. Massless particles don't age, and have no momentum 
> >>> through time. 
> >>> 
> >>> Similarly, cannot a point-in-time measurement be viewed as a 
> >>> measurement of position in the time dimension? 
> >>> 
> >>> In my view, you can go from the position-momentum uncertainty to 
> >>> the time-energy uncertainty simply by flipping the time-space 
> >>> orientation. Is this valid? Is there something I am missing? 
> >> 
> >> You are missing the fact that energy is bounded below, whereas 
> >> momentum can take on any value between plus and minus infinity. Time 
> >> is not an operator in quantum mechanics. 
> >> 
> >> Bruce 
> > 
> > Isn't there a valid interpretation/ application of the time-energy 
> > uncertainty relation in the context of emission of radiation? If so, 
> > what is it? TIA, AG 
> > 
> The rigorous versions of these interpretations involve having some 
> physical object included in the system that serves as a clock. So, if 
> you actually perform a measurement involving time, then the measured 
> time is represented by a physical clock. So, by including a quantum 
> mechanical description of a simplified model clock, you then do get an 
> observable for the measured time, despite the fact that there is no 
> observable that allows you to measure the parameter t in the Schrodinger 
> equation. 
>
> Saibal 
>

Can you give a concrete example where the time-energy form of the UP can be 
applied to? I once had an example, but can't recall what it was. TIA, AG

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/3d5cd78b-a75d-43f5-8d1e-2b309c04d2c5%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Position-Momentum vs. Time-Energy Uncertainty

[smitra]

On 15-04-2020 04:20, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Tuesday, April 14, 2020 at 4:28:23 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:


On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 2:07 AM Jason Resch 
wrote:


There has been controversy [1] in the meaning/interpretation of
the Time-Energy uncertainty relation in quantum mechanics, but
relatively none regarding the meaning of the position-momentum
uncertainty.

However, can these not be viewed equivalently in terms of a
4-dimensional space time?

For example, I have seen some describe mass/energy as momentum
through time. Massless particles don't age, and have no momentum
through time.

Similarly, cannot a point-in-time measurement be viewed as a
measurement of position in the time dimension?

In my view, you can go from the position-momentum uncertainty to
the time-energy uncertainty simply by flipping the time-space
orientation. Is this valid? Is there something I am missing?


You are missing the fact that energy is bounded below, whereas
momentum can take on any value between plus and minus infinity. Time
is not an operator in quantum mechanics.

Bruce


Isn't there a valid interpretation/ application of the time-energy
uncertainty relation in the context of emission of radiation? If so,
what is it? TIA, AG

The rigorous versions of these interpretations involve having some 
physical object included in the system that serves as a clock. So, if 
you actually perform a measurement involving time, then the measured 
time is represented by a physical clock. So, by including a quantum 
mechanical description of a simplified model clock, you then do get an 
observable for the measured time, despite the fact that there is no 
observable that allows you to measure the parameter t in the Schrodinger 
equation.


Saibal




Jason


 --
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/369bbe29-2821-47a0-b269-7e43ef4b97ac%40googlegroups.com
[2].


Links:
--
[1] https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0105049.pdf
[2]
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/369bbe29-2821-47a0-b269-7e43ef4b97ac%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ad5f837b27cba4944427cc2278d2e227%40zonnet.nl.

Re: Position-Momentum vs. Time-Energy Uncertainty

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Tuesday, April 14, 2020 at 11:07:42 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>
> There has been controversy <https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0105049.pdf> in 
> the meaning/interpretation of the Time-Energy uncertainty relation in 
> quantum mechanics, but relatively none regarding the meaning of the 
> position-momentum uncertainty.
>
> However, can these not be viewed equivalently in terms of a 4-dimensional 
> space time?
>
> For example, I have seen some describe mass/energy as momentum through 
> time. Massless particles don't age, and have no momentum through time.
>
> Similarly, cannot a point-in-time measurement be viewed as a measurement 
> of position in the time dimension?
>
> In my view, you can go from the position-momentum uncertainty to the 
> time-energy uncertainty simply by flipping the time-space orientation. Is 
> this valid? Is there something I am missing?
>
> Jason
>

The Fourier transform of time and frequency would naively mean there is 
negative frequency, which by E = ħω, and if we restrict the angular 
frequency away from negative then the energy is positive. That is one 
departure. If we did have a time operator such as T = iħ∂/∂E it would mean 
that energy is a generator of time. There would then be time eigenstates 
|t> such that T|t> = t|t>. We can think then of the time eigenstate |t> = 
e^{it(E - E_0}/ħ} such that energy is a continuous generator. This forbids 
the existence of discrete bound states. 

As a result, we do not normally think of a time operator. This operator 
would then have some Schrödinger equation of the form

iħ∂ψ/∂E = Tψ

If we can’t have a continuous energy then we can’t have a continuous time 
either. The existence of a time operator then requires that it have a 
discrete measure and that time and energy be bounded away. Is there 
something of this form? Yes, it is called the Taub-NUT spacetime, but it is 
not the universe we observe. 

The Taub-NUT spacetime is analogous to a black hole, but where the horizon 
condition occurs with time rather than with radius. There is also only one 
horizon. So this time version the black hole has only one black hole, at 
least if we take the spacetime as a global condition. I attach an image of 
this spacetime below. The green region is a region that has chronology 
protected and no timelike curves. The yellow region has closed timelike 
curves. The green region has this cyclicity condition on time, and I wrote 
a short letter on how a limited sort of time operator exists for a discrete 
time that cycles around. One of the oddities is that what plays the role of 
mass is a dual to mass, called the NUT parameter μ. This is analogous to 
the magnetic monopole. It shares with the gravitation mass m = GM/c^2 the 
S-duality condition m

mμ = 2πħ

laid down by Montenen and Olive.
 

[image: Taub-NUT spacetime1.PNG]


This spacetime does not reflect our observable universe. However, as a 
local region that “bolts” a de Sitter spacetime to an anti-de Sitter 
spacetime it may have some applicability We exist in a spacetime that is at 
least approximately de Sitter, which has no closed timelike curves etc. The 
inflationary spacetime is dS as well. A dS and AdS may have some 
correspondence with a “bolt” between them that is a Taub-NUT spacetime. It 
this is so there may then be some topological charge corresponding to the 
NUT parameter μ. This of course will probably be more mercurial to find 
than the EM magnetic monopole, if it exists.

The nice thing is that in this setting there is ultimately an equivalency 
between momentum-position and energy-time conjugate variables. However, in 
our observable world, certainly on the vacuum of low energy or physical 
vacuum, the physics we observe is constrained away from any such 
equivalency.

LC

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/8ec41b0c-2170-489a-baf4-b2becd47feb6%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Position-Momentum vs. Time-Energy Uncertainty

[Alan Grayson]

On Tuesday, April 14, 2020 at 4:28:23 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 2:07 AM Jason Resch  > wrote:
>
>> There has been controversy <https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0105049.pdf> in 
>> the meaning/interpretation of the Time-Energy uncertainty relation in 
>> quantum mechanics, but relatively none regarding the meaning of the 
>> position-momentum uncertainty.
>>
>> However, can these not be viewed equivalently in terms of a 4-dimensional 
>> space time?
>>
>> For example, I have seen some describe mass/energy as momentum through 
>> time. Massless particles don't age, and have no momentum through time.
>>
>> Similarly, cannot a point-in-time measurement be viewed as a measurement 
>> of position in the time dimension?
>>
>> In my view, you can go from the position-momentum uncertainty to the 
>> time-energy uncertainty simply by flipping the time-space orientation. Is 
>> this valid? Is there something I am missing?
>>
>
> You are missing the fact that energy is bounded below, whereas momentum 
> can take on any value between plus and minus infinity. Time is not an 
> operator in quantum mechanics.
>
> Bruce
>

Isn't there a valid interpretation/ application of the time-energy 
uncertainty relation in the context of emission of radiation? If so, what 
is it? TIA, AG 

>
>
>> Jason
>>
>  
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/369bbe29-2821-47a0-b269-7e43ef4b97ac%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Position-Momentum vs. Time-Energy Uncertainty

[Bruce Kellett]

On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 2:07 AM Jason Resch  wrote:

> There has been controversy <https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0105049.pdf> in
> the meaning/interpretation of the Time-Energy uncertainty relation in
> quantum mechanics, but relatively none regarding the meaning of the
> position-momentum uncertainty.
>
> However, can these not be viewed equivalently in terms of a 4-dimensional
> space time?
>
> For example, I have seen some describe mass/energy as momentum through
> time. Massless particles don't age, and have no momentum through time.
>
> Similarly, cannot a point-in-time measurement be viewed as a measurement
> of position in the time dimension?
>
> In my view, you can go from the position-momentum uncertainty to the
> time-energy uncertainty simply by flipping the time-space orientation. Is
> this valid? Is there something I am missing?
>

You are missing the fact that energy is bounded below, whereas momentum can
take on any value between plus and minus infinity. Time is not an operator
in quantum mechanics.

Bruce


> Jason
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLQSRg21n4p8ek5zYWPg1UwfuwdqQGo3yjdGYujP-0wZNw%40mail.gmail.com.

Position-Momentum vs. Time-Energy Uncertainty

[Jason Resch]

There has been controversy <https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0105049.pdf> in
the meaning/interpretation of the Time-Energy uncertainty relation in
quantum mechanics, but relatively none regarding the meaning of the
position-momentum uncertainty.

However, can these not be viewed equivalently in terms of a 4-dimensional
space time?

For example, I have seen some describe mass/energy as momentum through
time. Massless particles don't age, and have no momentum through time.

Similarly, cannot a point-in-time measurement be viewed as a measurement of
position in the time dimension?

In my view, you can go from the position-momentum uncertainty to the
time-energy uncertainty simply by flipping the time-space orientation. Is
this valid? Is there something I am missing?

Jason

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUgetQbaoYEk5KFOvdoWGyRbKhuP7XPdtkRS9UWj-91ENA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Does time flow?

['Chris de Morsella' via Everything List]

I guess it boils down to the question: is information purely abstract and 
dimensionless or not. If the encoding of information is not purely abstract 
then how did the universe at the very moment of creation, when all spacetime 
was contained within an (almost) infinitely tiny dot, already contain all the 
information that it now contains some 13.8 billion years after the big bang?
Assuming, for the sake of argument that new information, which did not exist 
before is created with the passage of time how can that be recociled with the 
block universe hypothesis?
I am not convinced either way, and don't have a dog in this game, but this 
strikes me as an interesting question to ask.
-Chris 
 
  On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 5:05 AM, Lawrence 
Crowell wrote:   I thought we already 
discussed this. The question I have about this is whether numbers involved with 
measurements are categorically equivalent to physical reality. These numbers 
are something which occurs in a calibrated measurement. Gisin appears to be 
making an equivalency between numbers and physical reality, This is where I 
find open questions on the relevancy of this work.
LC
On Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 9:43:45 PM UTC-5, cdemorsella wrote:
Read a thought provoking hypothesis proposed by Swiss physicist Nicolas Gisin 
in four papers he authored that questions the widely accepted block universe 
model of Relativity on a mathematical basis, centered on the proposition that 
infinitely precise real numbers do not exist in nature. 
Mathematics assumes the existence of infinitely precise real numbers as a 
given; Nicolas Gisin questions that assumption. Instead Grisin argues that a 
hundred year old branch of mathematics called Intuitionust Mathematics that 
rejects the existence of numbers with infinite digitsvof precision is used to 
describe the evolution of physical systems, it becomes clear that time really 
passes and that new information is being created.
The block universe model of spacetime argues for a static -- pre-ordained -- 
universe in which past, present and future are illusions and all that is always 
has been.
Modern information theory however shows that information is physical, it 
requires both energy and space. He questions how a block universe hypothesis 
could contain -- essentially infinite -- all the information encoded in the 
block universe in the initial state at the moment of the big bang. 
Intuitionist mathematics accepts the reality of irrational values such as say 
pi that have an infinite series of digits of precision because a formula exists 
that can in theory calculate its value to any degree of precision.
But say we have an arbitrary value x that is initially measured to some point 
of precision of x=0.4 (the example given) and that this value unfurls to 
greater and greater degrees of precision. Perhaps the series of 9s continues 
forever and thus x is exactly equal to 1/2, but if at any point a digit of 
lower value is encountered this quantity will forever be less than 1/2.  Before 
that happens we cannot know what x is equal to, our knowledge depends on this 
unfolding sequence.
"But before that happens, when all we know is 0.4999, “we don’t know whether or 
not a digit other than 9 will ever show up,” explained Carl Posy, a philosopher 
of mathematics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and a leading expert on 
intuitionist math. “At the time we consider this x, we cannot say that x is 
less than ½, nor can we say that x equals ½.” The proposition “x is equal to ½” 
is not true, and neither is its negation. The law of the excluded middle 
doesn’t hold."
"In other words, the world is indeterministic; the future is open. Time, Gisin 
said, “is not unfolding like a movie in the cinema. It is really a creative 
unfolding. The new digits really get created as time passes.”"
Here is the link to the article, for those interested: https://www. 
quantamagazine.org/does-time- really-flow-new-clues-come- 
from-a-century-old-approach- to-math-20200407/


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/50df69ad-b270-4589-9548-db22ef8252e2%40googlegroups.com.
  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/696166406.86299.1586814100829%40mail.yahoo.com.

Re: Does time flow?

[Lawrence Crowell]

I thought we already discussed this. The question I have about this is 
whether numbers involved with measurements are categorically equivalent to 
physical reality. These numbers are something which occurs in a calibrated 
measurement. Gisin appears to be making an equivalency between numbers and 
physical reality, This is where I find open questions on the relevancy of 
this work.

LC

On Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 9:43:45 PM UTC-5, cdemorsella wrote:
>
> Read a thought provoking hypothesis proposed by Swiss physicist Nicolas 
> Gisin in four papers he authored that questions the widely accepted block 
> universe model of Relativity on a mathematical basis, centered on the 
> proposition that infinitely precise real numbers do not exist in nature. 
>
> Mathematics assumes the existence of infinitely precise real numbers as a 
> given; Nicolas Gisin questions that assumption. Instead Grisin argues that 
> a hundred year old branch of mathematics called Intuitionust Mathematics 
> that rejects the existence of numbers with infinite digitsvof precision is 
> used to describe the evolution of physical systems, it becomes clear that 
> time really passes and that new information is being created.
>
> The block universe model of spacetime argues for a static -- pre-ordained 
> -- universe in which past, present and future are illusions and all that is 
> always has been.
>
> Modern information theory however shows that information is physical, it 
> requires both energy and space. He questions how a block universe 
> hypothesis could contain -- essentially infinite -- all the information 
> encoded in the block universe in the initial state at the moment of the big 
> bang. 
>
> Intuitionist mathematics accepts the reality of irrational values such as 
> say pi that have an infinite series of digits of precision because a 
> formula exists that can in theory calculate its value to any degree of 
> precision.
>
> But say we have an arbitrary value x that is initially measured to some 
> point of precision of x=0.4 (the example given) and that this value 
> unfurls to greater and greater degrees of precision. Perhaps the series of 
> 9s continues forever and thus x is exactly equal to 1/2, but if at any 
> point a digit of lower value is encountered this quantity will forever be 
> less than 1/2.  Before that happens we cannot know what x is equal to, our 
> knowledge depends on this unfolding sequence.
>
> "But before that happens, when all we know is 0.4999, “we don’t know 
> whether or not a digit other than 9 will ever show up,” explained Carl 
> Posy <https://en.philosophy.huji.ac.il/people/carl-posy>, a philosopher 
> of mathematics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and a leading expert 
> on intuitionist math. “At the time we consider this *x*, we cannot say 
> that *x* is less than ½, nor can we say that *x* equals ½.” The 
> proposition “*x* is equal to ½” is not true, and neither is its negation. 
> The law of the excluded middle doesn’t hold."
>
> "In other words, the world is indeterministic; the future is open. Time, 
> Gisin said, “is not unfolding like a movie in the cinema. It is really a 
> creative unfolding. The new digits really get created as time passes.”"
>
> Here is the link to the article, for those interested: 
> https://www.quantamagazine.org/does-time-really-flow-new-clues-come-from-a-century-old-approach-to-math-20200407/
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/50df69ad-b270-4589-9548-db22ef8252e2%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Does time flow?

[Russell Standish]

Thanks for this. I've downloaded this, and will get to it soon. It
sounds like an interesting approach.

On Thu, Apr 09, 2020 at 02:43:41AM +, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything 
List wrote:
> Read a thought provoking hypothesis proposed by Swiss physicist Nicolas Gisin
> in four papers he authored that questions the widely accepted block universe
> model of Relativity on a mathematical basis, centered on the proposition that
> infinitely precise real numbers do not exist in nature. 
> 
> Mathematics assumes the existence of infinitely precise real numbers as a
> given; Nicolas Gisin questions that assumption. Instead Grisin argues that a
> hundred year old branch of mathematics called Intuitionust Mathematics that
> rejects the existence of numbers with infinite digitsvof precision is used to
> describe the evolution of physical systems, it becomes clear that time really
> passes and that new information is being created.
> 
> The block universe model of spacetime argues for a static -- pre-ordained --
> universe in which past, present and future are illusions and all that is 
> always
> has been.
> 
> Modern information theory however shows that information is physical, it
> requires both energy and space. He questions how a block universe hypothesis
> could contain -- essentially infinite -- all the information encoded in the
> block universe in the initial state at the moment of the big bang. 
> 
> Intuitionist mathematics accepts the reality of irrational values such as say
> pi that have an infinite series of digits of precision because a formula 
> exists
> that can in theory calculate its value to any degree of precision.
> 
> But say we have an arbitrary value x that is initially measured to some point
> of precision of x=0.4 (the example given) and that this value unfurls to
> greater and greater degrees of precision. Perhaps the series of 9s continues
> forever and thus x is exactly equal to 1/2, but if at any point a digit of
> lower value is encountered this quantity will forever be less than 1/2.  
> Before
> that happens we cannot know what x is equal to, our knowledge depends on this
> unfolding sequence.
> 
> "But before that happens, when all we know is 0.4999, “we don’t know whether 
> or
> not a digit other than 9 will ever show up,” explained Carl Posy, a 
> philosopher
> of mathematics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and a leading expert on
> intuitionist math. “At the time we consider this x, we cannot say that x is
> less than ½, nor can we say that x equals ½.” The proposition “x is equal to 
> ½”
> is not true, and neither is its negation. The law of the excluded middle
> doesn’t hold."
> 
> "In other words, the world is indeterministic; the future is open. Time, Gisin
> said, “is not unfolding like a movie in the cinema. It is really a creative
> unfolding. The new digits really get created as time passes.”"
> 
> Here is the link to the article, for those interested: https://
> www.quantamagazine.org/
> does-time-really-flow-new-clues-come-from-a-century-old-approach-to-math-20200407
> /
> 
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email
> to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/
> everything-list/1883724681.2957102.1586400221647%40mail.yahoo.com.

-- 


Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
  http://www.hpcoders.com.au


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/20200413091932.GA3306%40zen.

RE: Does time flow?

['Chris de Morsella' via Everything List]

Read a thought provoking hypothesis proposed by Swiss physicist Nicolas Gisin 
in four papers he authored that questions the widely accepted block universe 
model of Relativity on a mathematical basis, centered on the proposition that 
infinitely precise real numbers do not exist in nature. 
Mathematics assumes the existence of infinitely precise real numbers as a 
given; Nicolas Gisin questions that assumption. Instead Grisin argues that a 
hundred year old branch of mathematics called Intuitionust Mathematics that 
rejects the existence of numbers with infinite digitsvof precision is used to 
describe the evolution of physical systems, it becomes clear that time really 
passes and that new information is being created.
The block universe model of spacetime argues for a static -- pre-ordained -- 
universe in which past, present and future are illusions and all that is always 
has been.
Modern information theory however shows that information is physical, it 
requires both energy and space. He questions how a block universe hypothesis 
could contain -- essentially infinite -- all the information encoded in the 
block universe in the initial state at the moment of the big bang. 
Intuitionist mathematics accepts the reality of irrational values such as say 
pi that have an infinite series of digits of precision because a formula exists 
that can in theory calculate its value to any degree of precision.
But say we have an arbitrary value x that is initially measured to some point 
of precision of x=0.4 (the example given) and that this value unfurls to 
greater and greater degrees of precision. Perhaps the series of 9s continues 
forever and thus x is exactly equal to 1/2, but if at any point a digit of 
lower value is encountered this quantity will forever be less than 1/2.  Before 
that happens we cannot know what x is equal to, our knowledge depends on this 
unfolding sequence.
"But before that happens, when all we know is 0.4999, “we don’t know whether or 
not a digit other than 9 will ever show up,” explained Carl Posy, a philosopher 
of mathematics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and a leading expert on 
intuitionist math. “At the time we consider this x, we cannot say that x is 
less than ½, nor can we say that x equals ½.” The proposition “x is equal to ½” 
is not true, and neither is its negation. The law of the excluded middle 
doesn’t hold."
"In other words, the world is indeterministic; the future is open. Time, Gisin 
said, “is not unfolding like a movie in the cinema. It is really a creative 
unfolding. The new digits really get created as time passes.”"
Here is the link to the article, for those interested: 
https://www.quantamagazine.org/does-time-really-flow-new-clues-come-from-a-century-old-approach-to-math-20200407/

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1883724681.2957102.1586400221647%40mail.yahoo.com.

Re: Reachability for infinite -time Turing machines with long tapes

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Monday, March 16, 2020 at 9:24:17 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 15 Mar 2020, at 16:39, Lawrence Crowell  > wrote:
>
> This is from a post I wrote on Hossenfelder's blog:
>
> Superdeterminism has characteristics very similar to hypercomputation. A 
> hyper-Turing machine is one able to circumvent the restrictions of the 
> Gödel-Turing uncomputability limit. A sort of Zeno machine may illustrate 
> this. If I were to flip a switch at one second, then flip again at ½ 
> second, then flip again at ¼ second and so forth, what is the state of the 
> switch after 2 seconds? Well the rapid increase in energy required to 
> oscillate the switch means that even if the switch does not fly apart it 
> will face an energy limit where it is a black hole. Hence, at least from 
> the outside general relativity appears to spoil the dream of circumventing 
> Gödel and Turing.
>
> What if we go into the black hole? The inner event horizon is in the pure 
> eternal solution continuous with I^∞. This would permit a sort of Zeno 
> computation to be observed. This means one could in principle witness this 
> end of switch toggling. So, if that switch is toggled or not toggled with 
> each half-partitioned integral of time any possible algorithm can be 
> computed and its output logged. However, this idealism is spoiled by 
> quantum mechanics, for the black hole will emit Hawking radiation and the 
> inner horizon is no longer continuous with I^∞. Thus, quantum mechanics 
> rescues Gödel and Turing, where both QM and GR appear to respect the 
> Church-Turing thesis of computation so computed outputs are from first 
> order primitive recursive algorithms.
>
>
> I agree, except on some minute vocabulary use, but I will not bother you 
> with this, unless necessary at some point.
> Note that a universal machine can compute/emulate all algorithms, but of 
> course not decide all provability question, and less so semantical 
> question, but not less than us, apparently.
>
>
>
The UTM is an emulator, and it can't determine the halting status of all 
TMs. A part of the reason is that as an emulator it has to emulate itself 
emulating other TMs. which leads to the Cantor diagonal slash result.

 

>
>
>
> As Peter Shor keeps harping on superdeterminism, with its real nesting of 
> fractal loops or orbits, implies a vast or even infinite number of degrees 
> of freedom. This does appear to be a serious minefield to go through, 
> However, if these are nonlocal they are not real degrees of freedom that 
> communicate information. They respect the no-signaling theorem of QM. If we 
> could really output all of these nested loops or paths this would be a sort 
> of hypercomputation. But we can’t, I illustrate this with the Matiyasevich 
> theorem in the uncomputability of p-adic sets, 
>
>
> I know (and teaches) Matiyasevic’s result that the diophantine polynomial 
> equations are Turing Universal, and thus that Hilbert 10th problem is 
> undedicadable (assuming CT). But I am not aware he worked on the p-adic 
> numbers. If you have a link?
>
>
>
The Gödel incompleteness comes with the p-adic number system used to define 
a field over this set or Cantor set. The set of frequencies or 
periodicities means this Cantor set in a certain “limit” has an unbounded 
set of primes for p-adic number systems. Then enters Martin Davis, Hilary 
Putnam, Julia Robinson and in particular Yuri Matiyasevich (DPRM). Hilbert 
asked if all Diophantine equations could be solved by a single method in 
his 10th problem. Diophantine equations were found to be equivalent to 
p-adic sets, and subsequently Yuri Matiyasevich proved these sets were not 
computable by a single method. This is a Gödel incompleteness result, where 
a proof for all possible p-adic is a form of Cantor diagonal slash. 
Solutions to Diophantine equations, which are associated with the nested 
frequencies or periodicities of orbits, can be solved locally, but there is 
no global solution method. This is a form of Szangolies’ epistemic horizon. 
The Cantor set here then has some undecidable properties in the p-adic 
setting, where any global field of numerical operations in a p-adic setting 
is incomplete. 

Martin Davis has a book on computability, *Computability and Unsolvability* 
and in a Dover edition, that on page 114 shows how all Diophantine 
equations are equivalent to a genera p-adic set. This was solved by DPR 
where M then used this in a Gödel incompleteness result. This is one of a 
few cases where Gödel incompleteness impacts what might be called real 
mathematics.
 

>
>
>
>
> while Palmer appeals to a funny idea of uncomputability of fractal or 
> recursively enumerable sets by Blum, Shub, and Smale.
>
>
>
> OK. Unfortunately with a non standard notion o

Re: Reachability for infinite -time Turing machines with long tapes

[Philip Thrift]

A question is not what anyone's theory of physics (their favorite equations) 
entails, but instead

What would be the kind of a collection of raw *data* (aka observations) from 
labs or telescopes or whatevers that would be needed to lead one to surmise a 
beyond-Turing theory would be needed (without any prior bias towards one's 
favorite theory)?

@philipthrift 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e8e6667a-9fd3-42a6-af80-55b63efac532%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Reachability for infinite -time Turing machines with long tapes

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 15 Mar 2020, at 16:39, Lawrence Crowell  
> wrote:
> 
> On Sunday, March 15, 2020 at 4:47:10 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 14 Mar 2020, at 22:42, Lawrence Crowell > > wrote:
>> 
>> On Saturday, March 14, 2020 at 5:23:53 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 12 Mar 2020, at 14:07, Lawrence Crowell > 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Wednesday, March 11, 2020 at 11:21:55 PM UTC-5, spudb...@aol.com 
>>> <http://aol.com/> wrote:
>>> You're ignoring quantum and photonic computing??!! 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> No, quantum computing does not even map NP problems into P. I does not get 
>>> around incompleteness results of Turing and Goedel.
>> 
>> That’s right. In fact super-hyper-machine does not escape incompleteness and 
>> can even be super-hyper-incomplete.Using the infinite to escape Gödel 
>> incompleteness does not work, or becomes trivial. 
>> 
>> I will consider admitting the infinite in the ontology the day I got an 
>> infinite salary :)
>> 
>> Even the induction axioms are not allowed in the ontology, despite being the 
>> main axiom about what is an observer.
>> 
>> Quantum computing (and I guess photonic computing) does not violate the 
>> Church-Turing thesis. David Deustch saw this clearly already in its main 
>> quantum computability paper.
>> 
>> Bruno
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Quantum computers obey the CT thesis. What might be called black hole 
>> computers the same holds. Quantum gravitation is the same, and my essay on 
>> FQXi explores this.
> 
> 
> You might recall us the link. I tend to agree with you. Of course we don’t 
> know, as we have not yet a coherent theory of gravitation and quantum 
> mechanics. But it is not good practice to speculate on the wrongness of a 
> theory to satisfy some philosophical desire, like Penrose seems to have done. 
> Gödel’s theorem and the quantum theory are until now rather strong evidence 
> that mechanism is true. But then the theory of everything, unifying all 
> forces, (love included!) is very simple, and any Turing complete first order 
> theory, without induction, nor axiom of infinity will do the job. Physics is 
> “machine independent” as we say in computer science.
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> This is from a post I wrote on Hossenfelder's blog:
> 
> Superdeterminism has characteristics very similar to hypercomputation. A 
> hyper-Turing machine is one able to circumvent the restrictions of the 
> Gödel-Turing uncomputability limit. A sort of Zeno machine may illustrate 
> this. If I were to flip a switch at one second, then flip again at ½ second, 
> then flip again at ¼ second and so forth, what is the state of the switch 
> after 2 seconds? Well the rapid increase in energy required to oscillate the 
> switch means that even if the switch does not fly apart it will face an 
> energy limit where it is a black hole. Hence, at least from the outside 
> general relativity appears to spoil the dream of circumventing Gödel and 
> Turing.
> 
> What if we go into the black hole? The inner event horizon is in the pure 
> eternal solution continuous with I^∞. This would permit a sort of Zeno 
> computation to be observed. This means one could in principle witness this 
> end of switch toggling. So, if that switch is toggled or not toggled with 
> each half-partitioned integral of time any possible algorithm can be computed 
> and its output logged. However, this idealism is spoiled by quantum 
> mechanics, for the black hole will emit Hawking radiation and the inner 
> horizon is no longer continuous with I^∞. Thus, quantum mechanics rescues 
> Gödel and Turing, where both QM and GR appear to respect the Church-Turing 
> thesis of computation so computed outputs are from first order primitive 
> recursive algorithms.

I agree, except on some minute vocabulary use, but I will not bother you with 
this, unless necessary at some point.
Note that a universal machine can compute/emulate all algorithms, but of course 
not decide all provability question, and less so semantical question, but not 
less than us, apparently.




> 
> As Peter Shor keeps harping on superdeterminism, with its real nesting of 
> fractal loops or orbits, implies a vast or even infinite number of degrees of 
> freedom. This does appear to be a serious minefield to go through, However, 
> if these are nonlocal they are not real degrees of freedom that communicate 
> information. They respect the no-signaling theorem of QM. If we could really 
> output all of these nested loops or paths this would be a sort of 
> hypercomputation. But we can’t, I illustrate this with the Matiyasevich 
>

Re: Reachability for infinite -time Turing machines with long tapes

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Sunday, March 15, 2020 at 4:47:10 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 14 Mar 2020, at 22:42, Lawrence Crowell  > wrote:
>
> On Saturday, March 14, 2020 at 5:23:53 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 12 Mar 2020, at 14:07, Lawrence Crowell  
>> wrote:
>>
>> On Wednesday, March 11, 2020 at 11:21:55 PM UTC-5, spudb...@aol.com 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> You're ignoring quantum and photonic computing??!! 
>>>
>>>
>> No, quantum computing does not even map NP problems into P. I does not 
>> get around incompleteness results of Turing and Goedel.
>>
>>
>> That’s right. In fact super-hyper-machine does not escape incompleteness 
>> and can even be super-hyper-incomplete.Using the infinite to escape Gödel 
>> incompleteness does not work, or becomes trivial. 
>>
>> I will consider admitting the infinite in the ontology the day I got an 
>> infinite salary :)
>>
>> Even the induction axioms are not allowed in the ontology, despite being 
>> the main axiom about what is an observer.
>>
>> Quantum computing (and I guess photonic computing) does not violate the 
>> Church-Turing thesis. David Deustch saw this clearly already in its main 
>> quantum computability paper.
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>>
> Quantum computers obey the CT thesis. What might be called black hole 
> computers the same holds. Quantum gravitation is the same, and my essay on 
> FQXi explores this.
>
>
>
> You might recall us the link. I tend to agree with you. Of course we don’t 
> know, as we have not yet a coherent theory of gravitation and quantum 
> mechanics. But it is not good practice to speculate on the wrongness of a 
> theory to satisfy some philosophical desire, like Penrose seems to have 
> done. Gödel’s theorem and the quantum theory are until now rather strong 
> evidence that mechanism is true. But then the theory of everything, 
> unifying all forces, (love included!) is very simple, and any Turing 
> complete first order theory, without induction, nor axiom of infinity will 
> do the job. Physics is “machine independent” as we say in computer science.
>
> Bruno
>
>
This is from a post I wrote on Hossenfelder's blog:

Superdeterminism has characteristics very similar to hypercomputation. A 
hyper-Turing machine is one able to circumvent the restrictions of the 
Gödel-Turing uncomputability limit. A sort of Zeno machine may illustrate 
this. If I were to flip a switch at one second, then flip again at ½ 
second, then flip again at ¼ second and so forth, what is the state of the 
switch after 2 seconds? Well the rapid increase in energy required to 
oscillate the switch means that even if the switch does not fly apart it 
will face an energy limit where it is a black hole. Hence, at least from 
the outside general relativity appears to spoil the dream of circumventing 
Gödel and Turing.

What if we go into the black hole? The inner event horizon is in the pure 
eternal solution continuous with I^∞. This would permit a sort of Zeno 
computation to be observed. This means one could in principle witness this 
end of switch toggling. So, if that switch is toggled or not toggled with 
each half-partitioned integral of time any possible algorithm can be 
computed and its output logged. However, this idealism is spoiled by 
quantum mechanics, for the black hole will emit Hawking radiation and the 
inner horizon is no longer continuous with I^∞. Thus, quantum mechanics 
rescues Gödel and Turing, where both QM and GR appear to respect the 
Church-Turing thesis of computation so computed outputs are from first 
order primitive recursive algorithms.

As Peter Shor keeps harping on superdeterminism, with its real nesting of 
fractal loops or orbits, implies a vast or even infinite number of degrees 
of freedom. This does appear to be a serious minefield to go through, 
However, if these are nonlocal they are not real degrees of freedom that 
communicate information. They respect the no-signaling theorem of QM. If we 
could really output all of these nested loops or paths this would be a sort 
of hypercomputation. But we can’t, I illustrate this with the Matiyasevich 
theorem in the uncomputability of p-adic sets, while Palmer appeals to a 
funny idea of uncomputability of fractal or recursively enumerable sets by 
Blum, Shub, and Smale.
Hypercomputing is an interesting concept, but spacetime configurations that 
permit it violate conditions such as Hawking-Penrose energy conditions or 
chronology protection. Quantum mechanics and general relativity have 
conditions that in some ways are equivalent. For instance, the no-cloning 
theorem of QM is equivalent to chronology protection, for a wormhole would 
permit quantum cloning of states.  

For hypercomputation a s

Re: Reachability for infinite -time Turing machines with long tapes

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 14 Mar 2020, at 22:42, Lawrence Crowell  
> wrote:
> 
> On Saturday, March 14, 2020 at 5:23:53 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 12 Mar 2020, at 14:07, Lawrence Crowell > > wrote:
>> 
>> On Wednesday, March 11, 2020 at 11:21:55 PM UTC-5, spudb...@aol.com 
>> <http://aol.com/> wrote:
>> You're ignoring quantum and photonic computing??!! 
>> 
>> 
>> No, quantum computing does not even map NP problems into P. I does not get 
>> around incompleteness results of Turing and Goedel.
> 
> That’s right. In fact super-hyper-machine does not escape incompleteness and 
> can even be super-hyper-incomplete.Using the infinite to escape Gödel 
> incompleteness does not work, or becomes trivial. 
> 
> I will consider admitting the infinite in the ontology the day I got an 
> infinite salary :)
> 
> Even the induction axioms are not allowed in the ontology, despite being the 
> main axiom about what is an observer.
> 
> Quantum computing (and I guess photonic computing) does not violate the 
> Church-Turing thesis. David Deustch saw this clearly already in its main 
> quantum computability paper.
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum computers obey the CT thesis. What might be called black hole 
> computers the same holds. Quantum gravitation is the same, and my essay on 
> FQXi explores this.


You might recall us the link. I tend to agree with you. Of course we don’t 
know, as we have not yet a coherent theory of gravitation and quantum 
mechanics. But it is not good practice to speculate on the wrongness of a 
theory to satisfy some philosophical desire, like Penrose seems to have done. 
Gödel’s theorem and the quantum theory are until now rather strong evidence 
that mechanism is true. But then the theory of everything, unifying all forces, 
(love included!) is very simple, and any Turing complete first order theory, 
without induction, nor axiom of infinity will do the job. Physics is “machine 
independent” as we say in computer science.

Bruno


> 
> LC
>  
> 
>> 
>> LC
>>  
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Lawrence Crowell >
>> To: Everything List >
>> Sent: Wed, Mar 11, 2020 10:31 am
>> Subject: Re: Reachability for infinite -time Turing machines with long tapes
>> 
>> On Tuesday, March 10, 2020 at 10:16:38 AM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote:
>> 
>> https://arxiv.org/abs/1802. 05734 <https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.05734>
>> 
>> @philipthrift
>> 
>> It looks to be a version of the busy beaver problem. The scale of the 
>> problem grows beyond computable bounds.
>> 
>> LC 
> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5aa35cd1-1ff2-4c5f-88b6-360ddb734e9a%40googlegroups.com
>  
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5aa35cd1-1ff2-4c5f-88b6-360ddb734e9a%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer>.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/69FB0BBC-0803-48D0-9C32-1D18A336000F%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Reachability for infinite -time Turing machines with long tapes

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 14 Mar 2020, at 12:22, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Saturday, March 14, 2020 at 5:23:53 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 12 Mar 2020, at 14:07, Lawrence Crowell > > wrote:
>> 
>> On Wednesday, March 11, 2020 at 11:21:55 PM UTC-5, spudb...@aol.com 
>>  wrote:
>> You're ignoring quantum and photonic computing??!! 
>> 
>> 
>> No, quantum computing does not even map NP problems into P. I does not get 
>> around incompleteness results of Turing and Goedel.
> 
> That’s right. In fact super-hyper-machine does not escape incompleteness and 
> can even be super-hyper-incomplete.Using the infinite to escape Gödel 
> incompleteness does not work, or becomes trivial. 
> 
> I will consider admitting the infinite in the ontology the day I got an 
> infinite salary :)
> 
> Even the induction axioms are not allowed in the ontology, despite being the 
> main axiom about what is an observer.
> 
> Quantum computing (and I guess photonic computing) does not violate the 
> Church-Turing thesis. David Deustch saw this clearly already in its main 
> quantum computability paper.
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/weirdest-idea-quantum-physics-catching-there-may-be-endless-worlds-ncna1068706
> 
> 
> “It's absolutely possible that there are multiple worlds where you made 
> different decisions. We're just obeying the laws of physics,” says Sean 
> Carroll, a theoretical physicist at the California Institute of Technology 
> and the author of a new book on many worlds titled "Something Deeply Hidden." 
> Just how many versions of you might there be? “We don't know whether the 
> number of worlds is finite or infinite, but it's certainly a very large 
> number," Carroll says. "There’s no way it’s, like, five.”

Yes, Mechanism enforces this. I have semi-rigorous evidence that for the 
illusion of matter we might need even very large cardinals. But they belong to 
the phenomenology. (Assuming mechanism) there are zero worlds, but from inside, 
there might be a cardinal of Laver of consistent histories, as far as I know.




> 
> Renowned theorist Roger Penrose of Oxford University dismisses the idea as 
> “reductio ad absurdum”: physics reduced to absurdity. On the other hand, 
> Penrose’s former collaborator, the late Stephen Hawking, described the many 
> worlds interpretation as “self-evidently true.”
> 
> Coming at the critique from a different angle, Oxford's Roger Penrose argues 
> that the whole idea of many worlds is flawed, because it’s based on an overly 
> simplistic version of quantum mechanics that doesn’t account for gravity. 
> “The rules must change when gravity is involved,” he says.

We can always speculate about a new theory. Penrose speculates also that 
Mechanism is false, and its use of Gödel’s theorem is invalid. Gödel’s theorem 
does not show that we are not machine, it shows only that if we are machine we 
cannot know which one, and indeed that is intuitively true, and is the base of 
the reduction of physics to a statistic on all computation.



> 
> In a more complete quantum theory, Penrose argues, gravity helps anchor 
> reality and blurry events will have only one allowable outcome. He points to 
> a potentially decisive experiment now being carried out at the University of 
> California, Santa Barbara, and Leiden University in the Netherlands that's 
> designed to directly observe how an object transforms from many possible 
> locations to a single, fixed reality.
> 
> Carroll is unmoved by these alternative explanations, which he considers 
> overly complicated and unsupported by data.

Carroll is right on this, with respect to mechanism. He remains physicalist 
thought and apparently unaware of the (computationalist) mind-body problem. 
That is just a tradition since 1500 years.



> The notion of multiple yous can be unnerving, he concedes. But to him the 
> underlying concept of many worlds is “crisp, clear, beautiful, simple and 
> pure.”
> 
> If he's right, he's not the only Sean Carroll who feels that way.


If two identical brain/computer do exactly the same 3p activity at the right 
substitution level, would you say that there is two people? If yes, then 
indeed, there are an infinity of Sean Carroll feeling that way. If no, then we 
have to define “Sean Carroll” by the quotient of the computational 
histories/states for a first person non-distinguishability relations, and the 
number will be finite.

Bruno




> 
> @philipthrift 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d637f2d3-0199-465e-8327-5374006276f1%40googlegroups.com
>  
> 

Re: Reachability for infinite -time Turing machines with long tapes

[Philip Thrift]

On Saturday, March 14, 2020 at 1:48:43 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 3/14/2020 4:22 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, March 14, 2020 at 5:23:53 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
>>
>>
>> On 12 Mar 2020, at 14:07, Lawrence Crowell  
>> wrote:
>>
>> On Wednesday, March 11, 2020 at 11:21:55 PM UTC-5, spudb...@aol.com 
>> wrote: 
>>>
>>> You're ignoring quantum and photonic computing??!! 
>>>
>>>
>> No, quantum computing does not even map NP problems into P. I does not 
>> get around incompleteness results of Turing and Goedel.
>>
>>
>> That’s right. In fact super-hyper-machine does not escape incompleteness 
>> and can even be super-hyper-incomplete.Using the infinite to escape Gödel 
>> incompleteness does not work, or becomes trivial. 
>>
>> I will consider admitting the infinite in the ontology the day I got an 
>> infinite salary :)
>>
>> Even the induction axioms are not allowed in the ontology, despite being 
>> the main axiom about what is an observer.
>>
>> Quantum computing (and I guess photonic computing) does not violate the 
>> Church-Turing thesis. David Deustch saw this clearly already in its main 
>> quantum computability paper.
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/weirdest-idea-quantum-physics-catching-there-may-be-endless-worlds-ncna1068706
>
>
> “It's absolutely possible that there are multiple worlds where you made 
> different decisions. We're just obeying the laws of physics,” says Sean 
> Carroll, a theoretical physicist at the California Institute of Technology 
> and the author of a new book on many worlds titled "Something Deeply 
> Hidden." Just how many versions of you might there be? “We don't know 
> whether the number of worlds is finite or infinite, but it's certainly a 
> very large number," Carroll says. "There’s no way it’s, like, five.”
>
> Renowned theorist Roger Penrose of Oxford University dismisses the idea as 
> “reductio ad absurdum”: physics reduced to absurdity. On the other hand, 
> Penrose’s former collaborator, the late Stephen Hawking, described the many 
> worlds interpretation as “self-evidently true.”
>
> Coming at the critique from a different angle, Oxford's Roger Penrose 
> argues that the whole idea of many worlds is flawed, because it’s based on 
> an overly simplistic version of quantum mechanics that doesn’t account for 
> gravity. “The rules must change when gravity is involved,” he says.
>
> In a more complete quantum theory, Penrose argues, gravity helps anchor 
> reality and blurry events will have only one allowable outcome. He points 
> to a potentially decisive experiment now being carried out at the 
> University of California, Santa Barbara, and Leiden University in the 
> Netherlands that's designed to directly observe how an object transforms 
> from many possible locations to a single, fixed reality.
>
> Carroll is unmoved by these alternative explanations, which he considers 
> overly complicated and unsupported by data. The notion of multiple yous can 
> be unnerving, he concedes. But to him the underlying concept of many worlds 
> is “crisp, clear, beautiful, simple and pure.”
>
>
> Did you not follow the discussion with Bruce and Smitra?  It is far from 
> “crisp, 
> clear, beautiful, simple and pure.” when you actually try to fill out how 
> it works.
>
> Brent
>
>

Roger Penrose is right:


Roger Penrose of Oxford University dismisses [many worlds] as “reductio ad 
absurdum”: physics reduced to absurdity.

@philipthrift 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1e6ba2a0-ac22-489f-9300-134d905749d4%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Reachability for infinite -time Turing machines with long tapes

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Saturday, March 14, 2020 at 5:23:53 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 12 Mar 2020, at 14:07, Lawrence Crowell  > wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, March 11, 2020 at 11:21:55 PM UTC-5, spudb...@aol.com wrote:
>>
>> You're ignoring quantum and photonic computing??!! 
>>
>>
> No, quantum computing does not even map NP problems into P. I does not get 
> around incompleteness results of Turing and Goedel.
>
>
> That’s right. In fact super-hyper-machine does not escape incompleteness 
> and can even be super-hyper-incomplete.Using the infinite to escape Gödel 
> incompleteness does not work, or becomes trivial. 
>
> I will consider admitting the infinite in the ontology the day I got an 
> infinite salary :)
>
> Even the induction axioms are not allowed in the ontology, despite being 
> the main axiom about what is an observer.
>
> Quantum computing (and I guess photonic computing) does not violate the 
> Church-Turing thesis. David Deustch saw this clearly already in its main 
> quantum computability paper.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
Quantum computers obey the CT thesis. What might be called black hole 
computers the same holds. Quantum gravitation is the same, and my essay on 
FQXi explores this.

LC
 

>
>
> LC
>  
>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Lawrence Crowell 
>> To: Everything List 
>> Sent: Wed, Mar 11, 2020 10:31 am
>> Subject: Re: Reachability for infinite -time Turing machines with long 
>> tapes
>>
>> On Tuesday, March 10, 2020 at 10:16:38 AM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>> https://arxiv.org/abs/1802. 05734 <https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.05734>
>>
>> @philipthrift
>>
>>
>> It looks to be a version of the busy beaver problem. The scale of the 
>> problem grows beyond computable bounds.
>>
>> LC 
>>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5aa35cd1-1ff2-4c5f-88b6-360ddb734e9a%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Reachability for infinite -time Turing machines with long tapes

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 3/14/2020 4:22 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:



On Saturday, March 14, 2020 at 5:23:53 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:



On 12 Mar 2020, at 14:07, Lawrence Crowell
> wrote:

On Wednesday, March 11, 2020 at 11:21:55 PM UTC-5,
spudb...@aol.com  wrote:

You're ignoring quantum and photonic computing??!!


No, quantum computing does not even map NP problems into P. I
does not get around incompleteness results of Turing and Goedel.


That’s right. In fact super-hyper-machine does not escape
incompleteness and can even be super-hyper-incomplete.Using the
infinite to escape Gödel incompleteness does not work, or becomes
trivial.

I will consider admitting the infinite in the ontology the day I
got an infinite salary :)

Even the induction axioms are not allowed in the ontology, despite
being the main axiom about what is an observer.

Quantum computing (and I guess photonic computing) does not
violate the Church-Turing thesis. David Deustch saw this clearly
already in its main quantum computability paper.

Bruno




https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/weirdest-idea-quantum-physics-catching-there-may-be-endless-worlds-ncna1068706


“It's absolutely possible that there are multiple worlds where you 
made different decisions. We're just obeying the laws of physics,” 
says Sean Carroll, a theoretical physicist at the California Institute 
of Technology and the author of a new book on many worlds titled 
"Something Deeply Hidden." Just how many versions of you might there 
be? “We don't know whether the number of worlds is finite or infinite, 
but it's certainly a very large number," Carroll says. "There’s no way 
it’s, like, five.”


Renowned theorist Roger Penrose of Oxford University dismisses the 
idea as “reductio ad absurdum”: physics reduced to absurdity. On the 
other hand, Penrose’s former collaborator, the late Stephen Hawking, 
described the many worlds interpretation as “self-evidently true.”


Coming at the critique from a different angle, Oxford's Roger Penrose 
argues that the whole idea of many worlds is flawed, because it’s 
based on an overly simplistic version of quantum mechanics that 
doesn’t account for gravity. “The rules must change when gravity is 
involved,” he says.


In a more complete quantum theory, Penrose argues, gravity helps 
anchor reality and blurry events will have only one allowable outcome. 
He points to a potentially decisive experiment now being carried out 
at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and Leiden University 
in the Netherlands that's designed to directly observe how an object 
transforms from many possible locations to a single, fixed reality.


Carroll is unmoved by these alternative explanations, which he 
considers overly complicated and unsupported by data. The notion of 
multiple yous can be unnerving, he concedes. But to him the underlying 
concept of many worlds is “crisp, clear, beautiful, simple and pure.”


Did you not follow the discussion with Bruce and Smitra?  It is far from 
“crisp, clear, beautiful, simple and pure.” when you actually try to 
fill out how it works.


Brent



If he's right, he's not the only Sean Carroll who feels that way.

@philipthrift
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d637f2d3-0199-465e-8327-5374006276f1%40googlegroups.com 
.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/3365b392-6422-05c7-0d5a-d5a00152bc87%40verizon.net.

Re: Reachability for infinite -time Turing machines with long tapes

[Philip Thrift]

On Saturday, March 14, 2020 at 5:23:53 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 12 Mar 2020, at 14:07, Lawrence Crowell  > wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, March 11, 2020 at 11:21:55 PM UTC-5, spudb...@aol.com wrote:
>>
>> You're ignoring quantum and photonic computing??!! 
>>
>>
> No, quantum computing does not even map NP problems into P. I does not get 
> around incompleteness results of Turing and Goedel.
>
>
> That’s right. In fact super-hyper-machine does not escape incompleteness 
> and can even be super-hyper-incomplete.Using the infinite to escape Gödel 
> incompleteness does not work, or becomes trivial. 
>
> I will consider admitting the infinite in the ontology the day I got an 
> infinite salary :)
>
> Even the induction axioms are not allowed in the ontology, despite being 
> the main axiom about what is an observer.
>
> Quantum computing (and I guess photonic computing) does not violate the 
> Church-Turing thesis. David Deustch saw this clearly already in its main 
> quantum computability paper.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/weirdest-idea-quantum-physics-catching-there-may-be-endless-worlds-ncna1068706


“It's absolutely possible that there are multiple worlds where you made 
different decisions. We're just obeying the laws of physics,” says Sean 
Carroll, a theoretical physicist at the California Institute of Technology 
and the author of a new book on many worlds titled "Something Deeply 
Hidden." Just how many versions of you might there be? “We don't know 
whether the number of worlds is finite or infinite, but it's certainly a 
very large number," Carroll says. "There’s no way it’s, like, five.”

Renowned theorist Roger Penrose of Oxford University dismisses the idea as 
“reductio ad absurdum”: physics reduced to absurdity. On the other hand, 
Penrose’s former collaborator, the late Stephen Hawking, described the many 
worlds interpretation as “self-evidently true.”

Coming at the critique from a different angle, Oxford's Roger Penrose 
argues that the whole idea of many worlds is flawed, because it’s based on 
an overly simplistic version of quantum mechanics that doesn’t account for 
gravity. “The rules must change when gravity is involved,” he says.

In a more complete quantum theory, Penrose argues, gravity helps anchor 
reality and blurry events will have only one allowable outcome. He points 
to a potentially decisive experiment now being carried out at the 
University of California, Santa Barbara, and Leiden University in the 
Netherlands that's designed to directly observe how an object transforms 
from many possible locations to a single, fixed reality.

Carroll is unmoved by these alternative explanations, which he considers 
overly complicated and unsupported by data. The notion of multiple yous can 
be unnerving, he concedes. But to him the underlying concept of many worlds 
is “crisp, clear, beautiful, simple and pure.”

If he's right, he's not the only Sean Carroll who feels that way.

@philipthrift 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d637f2d3-0199-465e-8327-5374006276f1%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Reachability for infinite -time Turing machines with long tapes

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 12 Mar 2020, at 14:07, Lawrence Crowell  
> wrote:
> 
> On Wednesday, March 11, 2020 at 11:21:55 PM UTC-5, spudb...@aol.com wrote:
> You're ignoring quantum and photonic computing??!! 
> 
> 
> No, quantum computing does not even map NP problems into P. I does not get 
> around incompleteness results of Turing and Goedel.

That’s right. In fact super-hyper-machine does not escape incompleteness and 
can even be super-hyper-incomplete.Using the infinite to escape Gödel 
incompleteness does not work, or becomes trivial. 

I will consider admitting the infinite in the ontology the day I got an 
infinite salary :)

Even the induction axioms are not allowed in the ontology, despite being the 
main axiom about what is an observer.

Quantum computing (and I guess photonic computing) does not violate the 
Church-Turing thesis. David Deustch saw this clearly already in its main 
quantum computability paper.

Bruno



> 
> LC
>  
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Lawrence Crowell >
> To: Everything List >
> Sent: Wed, Mar 11, 2020 10:31 am
> Subject: Re: Reachability for infinite -time Turing machines with long tapes
> 
> On Tuesday, March 10, 2020 at 10:16:38 AM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote:
> 
> https://arxiv.org/abs/1802. 05734 <https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.05734>
> 
> @philipthrift
> 
> It looks to be a version of the busy beaver problem. The scale of the problem 
> grows beyond computable bounds.
> 
> LC 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everyth...@googlegroups.com .
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/78b7f972-953b-48a2-94b3-112693535723%40googlegroups.com
>  
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/78b7f972-953b-48a2-94b3-112693535723%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer>
> .
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1c06645a-2f80-44ee-9d49-6a179e8a7892%40googlegroups.com
>  
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1c06645a-2f80-44ee-9d49-6a179e8a7892%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer>.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CF052D24-CEAE-4532-87DB-7C89AE021AF5%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Reachability for infinite -time Turing machines with long tapes

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 11 Mar 2020, at 15:31, Lawrence Crowell  
> wrote:
> 
> On Tuesday, March 10, 2020 at 10:16:38 AM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote:
> 
> https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.05734 
> 
> @philipthrift
> 
> It looks to be a version of the busy beaver problem. The scale of the problem 
> grows beyond computable bounds.

It concerns also infinite machine. With mechanism, they have a natural role in 
the phenomenology, but get problematic if we add them to the ontology.

Bruno



> 
> LC 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/78b7f972-953b-48a2-94b3-112693535723%40googlegroups.com
>  
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/E3CCA552-4558-4543-BD7C-B1F7B1A1030E%40ulb.ac.be.