Re: What is comparable and incomparable between casually disconnected universes?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 14 Jan 2019, at 21:23, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 1/14/2019 4:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> On 13 Jan 2019, at 21:33, Brent Meeker  
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 1/13/2019 6:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> On 11 Jan 2019, at 20:51, Brent Meeker  
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 1/11/2019 2:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> I suspect Planck constant to be not computable, because if we extract QM 
>> from arithmetic, the Planck constant might very well related to the 
>> mechanist substitution level.
> Planck's constant is not dimensionless. So its value is 1...in proper 
> units.
 Could you give those proper units? I expect one to be possibly 
 non-computable, but I would be very glad to hear that this is not the case.
>>> Are you pulling my leg, Bruno?  h=1 action  c=1 speed  G=1 gravitate
>> I have a problem with this. One physicist during a course needed to set 2*PI 
>> = 1, too.
>> 
>> So my question would be, can you give me what is a meter, and a second, in 
>> that units. 
> 
> meter = 6.188e34 [hbar*G/c^3]^0.5
> 
> second = 1.855e43 [hbar*G/c^5]^0.5
> 
> 
>> Or, can you give me a formula giving sense to how we could measure h or 
>> h-bar? E = hf, can we compute experimentally h by using this? 
> 
> You can't measure h or c in SI units; they are defined constants:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_redefinition_of_SI_base_units 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant#Particle_accelerator 
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> I am not good with unit. That does not exist in mathematics, of course. And 
>> I am just trying to see what it could mean for h to be non computable, in 
>> case that would mean something. Is c computable? (I use the idea that a real 
>> number is computable if we can generate all its decimal, whenever units is 
>> chosen.
> 
> It's not a matter of units.  Units are arbitrary.  The question is what are 
> the dimensions...and that is theory dependent.  In Newtonian physics, length 
> and duration, were dimensionally different.  In relativity they have the same 
> dimensionality; so it makes sense to rotate spacetime by a Lorentz 
> transformation.  So to answer a question like, "Is h computable" you have to 
> have a theory of physics that relates the value of h to other things...in 
> your theory, to things consciously observable.

Thank you Brent. Normally, there should be a relation between the uncertainty 
relation, notably time/emergy (DE.Dt >= h-bar/2) and the substitution level 
(which determines the first person indeterminacy domain in arithmetic). But 
there is a lot of work to do before we get to something like this, if only 
become the dimensions are “theory-dependent”, but the theory is what we have to 
derive first, and the dimension after.

Bruno



> 
> 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is comparable and incomparable between casually disconnected universes?

[Brent Meeker]

On 1/14/2019 4:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 13 Jan 2019, at 21:33, Brent Meeker  wrote:



On 1/13/2019 6:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 11 Jan 2019, at 20:51, Brent Meeker  wrote:



On 1/11/2019 2:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

I suspect Planck constant to be not computable, because if we extract QM from 
arithmetic, the Planck constant might very well related to the mechanist 
substitution level.

Planck's constant is not dimensionless. So its value is 1...in proper units.

Could you give those proper units? I expect one to be possibly non-computable, 
but I would be very glad to hear that this is not the case.

Are you pulling my leg, Bruno?  h=1 action  c=1 speed  G=1 gravitate

I have a problem with this. One physicist during a course needed to set 2*PI = 
1, too.

So my question would be, can you give me what is a meter, and a second, in that 
units.


meter = 6.188e34 [hbar*G/c^3]^0.5

second = 1.855e43 [hbar*G/c^5]^0.5



Or, can you give me a formula giving sense to how we could measure h or h-bar? 
E = hf, can we compute experimentally h by using this?


You can't measure h or c in SI units; they are defined constants:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_redefinition_of_SI_base_units
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant#Particle_accelerator


I am not good with unit. That does not exist in mathematics, of course. And I 
am just trying to see what it could mean for h to be non computable, in case 
that would mean something. Is c computable? (I use the idea that a real number 
is computable if we can generate all its decimal, whenever units is chosen.


It's not a matter of units.  Units are arbitrary.  The question is what 
are the dimensions...and that is theory dependent.  In Newtonian 
physics, length and duration, were dimensionally different.  In 
relativity they have the same dimensionality; so it makes sense to 
rotate spacetime by a Lorentz transformation.  So to answer a question 
like, "Is h computable" you have to have a theory of physics that 
relates the value of h to other things...in your theory, to things 
consciously observable.


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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is comparable and incomparable between casually disconnected universes?

[John Clark]

On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 2:03 AM Russell Standish 
wrote:

*> The Planck constant is, like the speed of light c, a unit conversion
> factor. In natural units, it is 1 (or at least ℏ is set to 1).*


That just restates the mystery using different words because natural units
are based on physical constants. That restatement simplifies things in some
circumstances but it has disadvantages, if you just use natural units in
your equations you're throwing away information. For the equation X/Y=1   X
and Y can have a infinite number of values and the equation is still
mathematically true,  but if X and Y are physical universal constants then
you might want to know the specific 2 values out of that infinity that also
make it physically true. If all I know is 1 there is no way I can get back
X and Y, but if I know X and Y I can always get 1.

 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is comparable and incomparable between casually disconnected universes?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 13 Jan 2019, at 21:33, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 1/13/2019 6:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> On 11 Jan 2019, at 20:51, Brent Meeker  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 1/11/2019 2:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
 I suspect Planck constant to be not computable, because if we extract QM 
 from arithmetic, the Planck constant might very well related to the 
 mechanist substitution level.
>>> Planck's constant is not dimensionless. So its value is 1...in proper units.
>> Could you give those proper units? I expect one to be possibly 
>> non-computable, but I would be very glad to hear that this is not the case.
> 
> Are you pulling my leg, Bruno?  h=1 action  c=1 speed  G=1 gravitate

I have a problem with this. One physicist during a course needed to set 2*PI = 
1, too.

So my question would be, can you give me what is a meter, and a second, in that 
units. Or, can you give me a formula giving sense to how we could measure h or 
h-bar? E = hf, can we compute experimentally h by using this? 
I am not good with unit. That does not exist in mathematics, of course. And I 
am just trying to see what it could mean for h to be non computable, in case 
that would mean something. Is c computable? (I use the idea that a real number 
is computable if we can generate all its decimal, whenever units is chosen.

Bruno




> 
> 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is comparable and incomparable between casually disconnected universes?

[Philip Thrift]

On Sunday, January 13, 2019 at 6:36:55 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 11:14 AM Lawrence Crowell <
> goldenfield...@gmail.com > wrote:
>
>> On Friday, January 11, 2019 at 4:51:24 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 9:29 AM Lawrence Crowell <
>>> goldenfield...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
 On Thursday, January 10, 2019 at 7:18:21 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
> On 1/10/2019 4:21 PM, John Clark wrote:
>
> *So even Feynman knew that there was no theoretical value for the FSC, 
>> alpha.*
>>
>
> No,  he knew very well there was a theory that could come up with a 
> value because his own Feynman Diagrams could do it. But what he didn't 
> know 
> and what nobody knows is why his theory came up with that particular pure 
> number when he never specifically stuck that number into the rules on how 
> the diagrams should operate. 
>
>
> The fine structure constant is e^2/hbar*c.  Those three values are 
> measured independent of any Feynman diagrams of quantum field theory.  
> The 
> calculation using Feynman diagrams is of the anamolous magnetic moment.   
> A 
> correction to the value of g that depend on relativistic effects (hence 
> the 
> occurence of c in the denominator).  The anamolous magnetic moment can be 
> measure experimentally and using Feynman's diagrams and the measured 
> values 
> of e, hbar, and c a value can be calculated that includes the 
> relativistic 
> effects of quantum field theory. That's why the agreement with 
> measurement 
> is significant.
>
> Brent
>

 Everyone seems to be overlooking charge renormalization.

>>>
>>> Do you really think that that is relevant? How?
>>>
>>> Bruce 
>>>
>>
>> The physical charge is a bare mass corrected by a correction term e = e' 
>> + δe. Charge adjusts with energy in a renormalization group flow of 
>> adjustable parameters. At EW unification energy the fine structure constant 
>> is around 1/128. As E → 0 the RG flow reaches an attractor point that is 
>> the α = e^2/4πεħc. This is computed for the renormalized physical charge e 
>> from all radiative corrections possible.
>>
>
>
> I think everyone else is aware that the fine structure constant we are 
> talking about is the zero energy limit of the running coupling constant. 
> The infinite renormalisation terms are subtracted from the bare charge to 
> give the experimental result. Only the zero energy measured value has 
> physical significance at low energies.
>
> Bruce
>



There is this alternative:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_McGoveran#Discrete_Physics

"In 1988, [David McGoveran developed] methods to develop a new derivation 
of the Fine Structure Spectrum of Hydrogen, which was further developed and 
published with H.P. Noyes. In later work, the approach was shown to support 
Feynman sum-over-paths in 1+1 dimensions and gave the solution to the Dirac 
equation (Green's function). Noyes has cited McGoveran's calculation of the 
Sommerfeld-Dirac formula and corrections to both the* combinatorial 
hierarchy computation of the fine structure and gravitational consta*nts as 
convincing him that the evolving combinatorial hierarchy construction could 
be the starting point for a new physics and physical cosmology."

- pt

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is comparable and incomparable between casually disconnected universes?

[Russell Standish]

On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 11:16:09AM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
> Some constant might be intrinsically not computable. Normally, the physical
> laws should at some point take into account the probability of (self) halting,
> which would introduce a non computable constant in nature, although it would 
> be
> computable from the halting oracle. Mechanism prevents the physical reality
> from being entirely computable. I suspect Planck constant to be not 
> computable,
> because if we extract QM from arithmetic, the Planck constant might very well
> related to the mechanist substitution level.

The Planck constant is, like the speed of light c, a unit conversion
factor. In natural units, it is 1 (or at least ℏ is set to 1).


-- 


Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Senior Research Fellowhpco...@hpcoders.com.au
Economics, Kingston University 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is comparable and incomparable between casually disconnected universes?

[Bruce Kellett]

On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 11:14 AM Lawrence Crowell <
goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Friday, January 11, 2019 at 4:51:24 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 9:29 AM Lawrence Crowell <
>> goldenfield...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thursday, January 10, 2019 at 7:18:21 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:

 On 1/10/2019 4:21 PM, John Clark wrote:

 *So even Feynman knew that there was no theoretical value for the FSC,
> alpha.*
>

 No,  he knew very well there was a theory that could come up with a
 value because his own Feynman Diagrams could do it. But what he didn't know
 and what nobody knows is why his theory came up with that particular pure
 number when he never specifically stuck that number into the rules on how
 the diagrams should operate.


 The fine structure constant is e^2/hbar*c.  Those three values are
 measured independent of any Feynman diagrams of quantum field theory.  The
 calculation using Feynman diagrams is of the anamolous magnetic moment.   A
 correction to the value of g that depend on relativistic effects (hence the
 occurence of c in the denominator).  The anamolous magnetic moment can be
 measure experimentally and using Feynman's diagrams and the measured values
 of e, hbar, and c a value can be calculated that includes the relativistic
 effects of quantum field theory. That's why the agreement with measurement
 is significant.

 Brent

>>>
>>> Everyone seems to be overlooking charge renormalization.
>>>
>>
>> Do you really think that that is relevant? How?
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>
> The physical charge is a bare mass corrected by a correction term e = e' +
> δe. Charge adjusts with energy in a renormalization group flow of
> adjustable parameters. At EW unification energy the fine structure constant
> is around 1/128. As E → 0 the RG flow reaches an attractor point that is
> the α = e^2/4πεħc. This is computed for the renormalized physical charge e
> from all radiative corrections possible.
>


I think everyone else is aware that the fine structure constant we are
talking about is the zero energy limit of the running coupling constant.
The infinite renormalisation terms are subtracted from the bare charge to
give the experimental result. Only the zero energy measured value has
physical significance at low energies.

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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is comparable and incomparable between casually disconnected universes?

[Brent Meeker]

On 1/13/2019 6:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 11 Jan 2019, at 20:51, Brent Meeker  wrote:



On 1/11/2019 2:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

I suspect Planck constant to be not computable, because if we extract QM from 
arithmetic, the Planck constant might very well related to the mechanist 
substitution level.

Planck's constant is not dimensionless. So its value is 1...in proper units.

Could you give those proper units? I expect one to be possibly non-computable, 
but I would be very glad to hear that this is not the case.


Are you pulling my leg, Bruno?  h=1 action  c=1 speed  G=1 gravitate

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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is comparable and incomparable between casually disconnected universes?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 11 Jan 2019, at 20:51, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 1/11/2019 2:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> I suspect Planck constant to be not computable, because if we extract QM 
>> from arithmetic, the Planck constant might very well related to the 
>> mechanist substitution level.
> 
> Planck's constant is not dimensionless. So its value is 1...in proper units.

Could you give those proper units? I expect one to be possibly non-computable, 
but I would be very glad to hear that this is not the case.

Bruno



> 
> 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is comparable and incomparable between casually disconnected universes?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 13 Jan 2019, at 00:28, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Saturday, January 12, 2019 at 4:17:56 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
> 
> 
> On 1/12/2019 2:51 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Friday, January 11, 2019 at 7:19:06 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On 1/11/2019 1:57 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Friday, January 11, 2019 at 2:46:35 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 1/11/2019 6:01 AM, John Clark wrote:
 On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 8:18 PM Brent Meeker > 
 wrote:
 
 > The fine structure constant is e^2/hbar*c.  Those three values are 
 > measured independent of any Feynman diagrams
 
 Absolutely correct. So if you use Feynman diagrams to predict what some 
 physical system is going to do, such as a physical system of 2 electrons 
 being hit by a photon of light with a wavelength small enough to contain 
 enough energy to prevent the electrons 
 repulsion, then you'd better get a number very close to the Fine Structure 
 Constant. If you don't then Feynman Diagrams aren't any good.
 
 They didn't use 12,672 Feynman Diagrams because they wanted to know what 
 the Fine Structure Constant was, they already knew what that number was to 
 many decimal places from exparament, they used 12,672 Feynman Diagrams 
 because they wanted to see if Feynman Diagrams worked. And it turned out 
 they worked spectacularly well in that situation, and that gives 
 scientists great confidence they can use Feynman Diagrams in other 
 situations to calculate what other physical systems will do that involve 
 the Electromagnetic Force.
>>> 
>>> There's always an interplay between theory and experiment.  It's completely 
>>> analogous to Maxwell's discovery that light is EM waves. There were already 
>>> experimental values of the permittivity and permeability of the vacuum and 
>>> there were values for the speed of light.  Maxwell showed that his theory 
>>> of EM predicted waves and using the permittivity and permeability values 
>>> the speed of the waves matched that of light.  Now the speed of light is a 
>>> defined constant and so are the permittivity and permeability of the 
>>> vacuum.  So the connecting of the three values by a theory allows their 
>>> values to be defined.  In the case of the anomalous magnetic moment of the 
>>> electron, hbar and c are already defined constants.  So quantum field 
>>> theory (for which Feynman diagrams are just a calculational tool) linked 
>>> them and e to g.
>>> 
>>> Brent
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> If Feynman Diagrams (tools) are sufficient (to match experimental data) 
>>> then Quantum Field Theory can be thrown in the wastebasket.
>> 
>> ?? Feynman Diagrams are just a mathematical trick for summing up terms to 
>> approximate the propagator of QFT.  
>> 
>> Brent
>> 
>> 
>> You just make Feynman Diagrams the fundamental elements of the theory, and 
>> propagators derived from them.
> 
> How many diagrams?  The propagator has a clear interpretation as connecting 
> the field at x with the field at y.  Feynman showed that his diagrams 
> provided a good mnemonic for the infinite number of terms that would sum to 
> the propagator.  If you take the diagrams as fundamental you then need to 
> specify how many.
> 
>> 
>> Just like histories are made fundamental, and Hilbert Spaces are derived 
>> from them.
> 
> Hilbert spaces are infinite dimensional vector spaces.  So you have the same 
> problem: How many histories?
> 
> Brent
> 
>> 
>> https://arxiv.org/abs/1002.0589 
>>  
>> 
>> Theories do not come from Mount Olympus.
>> 
>> - pt
> 
> 
> As many histories/diagrams as you need. There are supercomputers now.
> 
> 
> But what do physicists really think is closer to actual reality?  Something 
> closer to Histories/Diagrams or to a Hilbert Space. Do some really think that 
> in fact  material reality is actually an infinite-dimensional Hilbert Space?
> 
> That is so freaking bizarre, isn't it, when you think about it.

Reality is freaking bizarre, but we get used to it. When I learned that Earth 
was round, and the the movement of the sun was due to the spinning of the 
Earth, I found that freaking bizarre. Then, when a man walked on the moon, I 
was already unable to not find the idea very natural, almost obvious.

With mechanism, the physical reality is not an Hilbert space, but it (should) 
looks like that (or close) when seen from the set-referentially (in the 
arithmetical sense) correct internal views of arithmetic or any universal 
system.

Bruno


> 
> - pt
> 
> -- 
> 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 post to this group, send email to everyt

Re: What is comparable and incomparable between casually disconnected universes?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 12 Jan 2019, at 23:17, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 1/12/2019 2:51 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Friday, January 11, 2019 at 7:19:06 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On 1/11/2019 1:57 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Friday, January 11, 2019 at 2:46:35 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 1/11/2019 6:01 AM, John Clark wrote:
 On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 8:18 PM Brent Meeker > 
 wrote:
 
 > The fine structure constant is e^2/hbar*c.  Those three values are 
 > measured independent of any Feynman diagrams
 
 Absolutely correct. So if you use Feynman diagrams to predict what some 
 physical system is going to do, such as a physical system of 2 electrons 
 being hit by a photon of light with a wavelength small enough to contain 
 enough energy to prevent the electrons repulsion, then you'd better get a 
 number very close to the Fine Structure Constant. If you don't then 
 Feynman Diagrams aren't any good.
 
 They didn't use 12,672 Feynman Diagrams because they wanted to know what 
 the Fine Structure Constant was, they already knew what that number was to 
 many decimal places from exparament, they used 12,672 Feynman Diagrams 
 because they wanted to see if Feynman Diagrams worked. And it turned out 
 they worked spectacularly well in that situation, and that gives 
 scientists great confidence they can use Feynman Diagrams in other 
 situations to calculate what other physical systems will do that involve 
 the Electromagnetic Force.
>>> 
>>> There's always an interplay between theory and experiment.  It's completely 
>>> analogous to Maxwell's discovery that light is EM waves. There were already 
>>> experimental values of the permittivity and permeability of the vacuum and 
>>> there were values for the speed of light.  Maxwell showed that his theory 
>>> of EM predicted waves and using the permittivity and permeability values 
>>> the speed of the waves matched that of light.  Now the speed of light is a 
>>> defined constant and so are the permittivity and permeability of the 
>>> vacuum.  So the connecting of the three values by a theory allows their 
>>> values to be defined.  In the case of the anomalous magnetic moment of the 
>>> electron, hbar and c are already defined constants.  So quantum field 
>>> theory (for which Feynman diagrams are just a calculational tool) linked 
>>> them and e to g.
>>> 
>>> Brent
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> If Feynman Diagrams (tools) are sufficient (to match experimental data) 
>>> then Quantum Field Theory can be thrown in the wastebasket.
>> 
>> ?? Feynman Diagrams are just a mathematical trick for summing up terms to 
>> approximate the propagator of QFT.  
>> 
>> Brent
>> 
>> 
>> You just make Feynman Diagrams the fundamental elements of the theory, and 
>> propagators derived from them.
> 
> How many diagrams?  The propagator has a clear interpretation as connecting 
> the field at x with the field at y.  Feynman showed that his diagrams 
> provided a good mnemonic for the infinite number of terms that would sum to 
> the propagator.  If you take the diagrams as fundamental you then need to 
> specify how many.
> 
>> 
>> Just like histories are made fundamental, and Hilbert Spaces are derived 
>> from them.
> 
> Hilbert spaces are infinite dimensional vector spaces.  So you have the same 
> problem: How many histories?

The aleph_1 one on which your consciousness can differentiate, but in practice 
we can use only the aleph_0 local pieces of histories (which are indexical sets 
of past/memories+future/accessible-worlds).

Bruno


> 
> Brent
> 
>> 
>> https://arxiv.org/abs/1002.0589 
>>  
>> 
>> Theories do not come from Mount Olympus.
>> 
>> - pt
>> -- 
>> 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
>> .
>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
>> .
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
>> .
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> 

Re: What is comparable and incomparable between casually disconnected universes?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 12 Jan 2019, at 11:51, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Friday, January 11, 2019 at 7:19:06 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
> 
> 
> On 1/11/2019 1:57 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Friday, January 11, 2019 at 2:46:35 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On 1/11/2019 6:01 AM, John Clark wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 8:18 PM Brent Meeker > wrote:
>>> 
>>> > The fine structure constant is e^2/hbar*c.  Those three values are 
>>> > measured independent of any Feynman diagrams
>>> 
>>> Absolutely correct. So if you use Feynman diagrams to predict what some 
>>> physical system is going to do, such as a physical system of 2 electrons 
>>> being hit by a photon of light with a wavelength small enough to contain 
>>> enough energy to prevent the electrons repulsion, then you'd better get a 
>>> number very close to the Fine Structure Constant. If you don't then Feynman 
>>> Diagrams aren't any good.
>>> 
>>> They didn't use 12,672 Feynman Diagrams because they wanted to know what 
>>> the Fine Structure Constant was, they already knew 
>>> what that number was to many decimal places from exparament, they used 
>>> 12,672 Feynman Diagrams because they wanted to see if Feynman Diagrams 
>>> worked. And it turned out they worked spectacularly well in that situation, 
>>> and that gives scientists great confidence they can use Feynman Diagrams in 
>>> other situations to calculate what other physical systems will do that 
>>> involve the Electromagnetic Force.
>> 
>> There's always an interplay between theory and experiment.  It's completely 
>> analogous to Maxwell's discovery that light is EM waves. There were already 
>> experimental values of the permittivity and permeability of the vacuum and 
>> there were values for the speed of light.  Maxwell showed that his theory of 
>> EM predicted waves and using the permittivity and permeability values the 
>> speed of the waves matched that of light.  Now the speed of light is a 
>> defined constant and so are the permittivity and permeability of the vacuum. 
>>  So the connecting of the three values by a theory allows their values to be 
>> defined.  In the case of the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron, hbar 
>> and c are already defined constants.  So quantum field theory (for which 
>> Feynman diagrams are just a calculational tool) linked them and e to g.
>> 
>> Brent
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> If Feynman Diagrams (tools) are sufficient (to match experimental data) then 
>> Quantum Field Theory can be thrown in the wastebasket.
> 
> ?? Feynman Diagrams are just a mathematical trick for summing up terms to 
> approximate the propagator of QFT.  
> 
> Brent
> 
> 
> You just make Feynman Diagrams the fundamental elements of the theory, and 
> propagators derived from them.
> 
> Just like histories are made fundamental, and Hilbert Spaces are derived from 
> them.
> 
> https://arxiv.org/abs/1002.0589 

That is a very good paper, I think it is the right approach, and probably the 
closer to what Digital Mechanism is going too. Just that the histories are not 
fundamental with mechanism, as they are the sigma_1 sentences with formal truth 
and/or consistency additions ([]p & p, []p & <>t, []p & <>t & p).

Bruno

> 
> Theories do not come from Mount Olympus.
> 
> - pt
> 
> -- 
> 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is comparable and incomparable between casually disconnected universes?

[Philip Thrift]

On Saturday, January 12, 2019 at 7:09:29 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> On Saturday, January 12, 2019 at 4:17:56 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 1/12/2019 2:51 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, January 11, 2019 at 7:19:06 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 1/11/2019 1:57 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Friday, January 11, 2019 at 2:46:35 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 



 On 1/11/2019 6:01 AM, John Clark wrote:

 On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 8:18 PM Brent Meeker  
 wrote:

 * > The fine structure constant is e^2/hbar*c.  Those three values are 
> measured independent of any Feynman diagrams*
>

 Absolutely correct. So if you use Feynman diagrams to predict what some 
 physical system is going to do, such as a physical system of 2 electrons 
 being hit by a photon of light with a wavelength small enough to contain 
 enough energy to prevent the electrons repulsion, then you'd better get a 
 number very close to the Fine Structure Constant. If you don't then 
 Feynman 
 Diagrams aren't any good. 

 They didn't use 12,672 Feynman Diagrams because they wanted to know 
 what the Fine Structure Constant was, they already knew what that 
 number was to many decimal places from exparament, they used 12,672 
 Feynman Diagrams because they wanted to see if Feynman Diagrams 
 worked. And it turned out they worked spectacularly well in that 
 situation, 
 and that gives scientists great confidence they can use Feynman Diagrams 
 in 
 other situations to calculate what other physical systems will do that 
 involve the Electromagnetic Force.


 There's always an interplay between theory and experiment.  It's 
 completely analogous to Maxwell's discovery that light is EM waves. There 
 were already experimental values of the permittivity and permeability of 
 the vacuum and there were values for the speed of light.  Maxwell showed 
 that his theory of EM predicted waves and using the permittivity and 
 permeability values the speed of the waves matched that of light.  Now the 
 speed of light is a defined constant and so are the permittivity and 
 permeability of the vacuum.  So the connecting of the three values by a 
 theory allows their values to be defined.  In the case of the anomalous 
 magnetic moment of the electron, hbar and c are already defined constants. 
  
 So quantum field theory (for which Feynman diagrams are just a 
 calculational tool) linked them and e to g.

 Brent


>>>
>>>
>>> If Feynman Diagrams (tools) are sufficient (to match experimental data) 
>>> then Quantum Field Theory can be thrown in the wastebasket.
>>>
>>>
>>> ?? Feynman Diagrams are just a mathematical trick for summing up terms 
>>> to approximate the propagator of QFT.  
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>>
>> You just make Feynman Diagrams the fundamental elements of the theory, 
>> and propagators derived from them.
>>
>>
>> How many diagrams?  The propagator has a clear interpretation as 
>> connecting the field at x with the field at y.  Feynman showed that his 
>> diagrams provided a good mnemonic for the infinite number of terms that 
>> would sum to the propagator.  If you take the diagrams as fundamental you 
>> then need to specify how many.
>>
>>
>> Just like histories are made fundamental, and Hilbert Spaces are derived 
>> from them.
>>
>>
>> Hilbert spaces are infinite dimensional vector spaces.  So you have the 
>> same problem: How many histories?
>>
>> Brent
>>
>  
> The number of diagrams grows exponentially. As I recall the QED industry 
> is up to 12 orders of radiative corrections and renormalization orders. The 
> number of diagrams to evaluate and sum is in the millions if not billions. 
> This stuff is done on supercomputers these days. People do not really 
> evaluate Feynman diagrams, they write computer programs.
>
> LC
>


Supercomputers are the future of theoretical physics it seems, like the one 
at LSU, SuperMike-II.

http://www.hpc.lsu.edu/docs/guides.php?system=SuperMike2

*SuperMike-II is a 146 TFlops Peak Performance 440 compute node cluster 
running the Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 operating system. Each node contains 
two 8-Core Sandy Bridge Xeon 64-bit processors operating at a core 
frequency of 2.6 GHz. Fifty of the compute nodes also have two NVIDIA M2090 
GPUs that provide an additional 66 Tflops total Peak performance.*

use in LQG:
https://www.lsu.edu/mediacenter/news/2018/12/20physastro_singh_prl.php 


- pt

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.

Re: What is comparable and incomparable between casually disconnected universes?

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Saturday, January 12, 2019 at 4:17:56 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 1/12/2019 2:51 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, January 11, 2019 at 7:19:06 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 1/11/2019 1:57 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, January 11, 2019 at 2:46:35 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 1/11/2019 6:01 AM, John Clark wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 8:18 PM Brent Meeker  
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> * > The fine structure constant is e^2/hbar*c.  Those three values are 
 measured independent of any Feynman diagrams*

>>>
>>> Absolutely correct. So if you use Feynman diagrams to predict what some 
>>> physical system is going to do, such as a physical system of 2 electrons 
>>> being hit by a photon of light with a wavelength small enough to contain 
>>> enough energy to prevent the electrons repulsion, then you'd better get a 
>>> number very close to the Fine Structure Constant. If you don't then Feynman 
>>> Diagrams aren't any good. 
>>>
>>> They didn't use 12,672 Feynman Diagrams because they wanted to know 
>>> what the Fine Structure Constant was, they already knew what that 
>>> number was to many decimal places from exparament, they used 12,672 
>>> Feynman Diagrams because they wanted to see if Feynman Diagrams worked. 
>>> And it turned out they worked spectacularly well in that situation, and 
>>> that gives scientists great confidence they can use Feynman Diagrams in 
>>> other situations to calculate what other physical systems will do that 
>>> involve the Electromagnetic Force.
>>>
>>>
>>> There's always an interplay between theory and experiment.  It's 
>>> completely analogous to Maxwell's discovery that light is EM waves. There 
>>> were already experimental values of the permittivity and permeability of 
>>> the vacuum and there were values for the speed of light.  Maxwell showed 
>>> that his theory of EM predicted waves and using the permittivity and 
>>> permeability values the speed of the waves matched that of light.  Now the 
>>> speed of light is a defined constant and so are the permittivity and 
>>> permeability of the vacuum.  So the connecting of the three values by a 
>>> theory allows their values to be defined.  In the case of the anomalous 
>>> magnetic moment of the electron, hbar and c are already defined constants.  
>>> So quantum field theory (for which Feynman diagrams are just a 
>>> calculational tool) linked them and e to g.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> If Feynman Diagrams (tools) are sufficient (to match experimental data) 
>> then Quantum Field Theory can be thrown in the wastebasket.
>>
>>
>> ?? Feynman Diagrams are just a mathematical trick for summing up terms to 
>> approximate the propagator of QFT.  
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
>
> You just make Feynman Diagrams the fundamental elements of the theory, and 
> propagators derived from them.
>
>
> How many diagrams?  The propagator has a clear interpretation as 
> connecting the field at x with the field at y.  Feynman showed that his 
> diagrams provided a good mnemonic for the infinite number of terms that 
> would sum to the propagator.  If you take the diagrams as fundamental you 
> then need to specify how many.
>
>
> Just like histories are made fundamental, and Hilbert Spaces are derived 
> from them.
>
>
> Hilbert spaces are infinite dimensional vector spaces.  So you have the 
> same problem: How many histories?
>
> Brent
>
 
The number of diagrams grows exponentially. As I recall the QED industry is 
up to 12 orders of radiative corrections and renormalization orders. The 
number of diagrams to evaluate and sum is in the millions if not billions. 
This stuff is done on supercomputers these days. People do not really 
evaluate Feynman diagrams, they write computer programs.

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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is comparable and incomparable between casually disconnected universes?

[Philip Thrift]

On Saturday, January 12, 2019 at 4:17:56 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 1/12/2019 2:51 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, January 11, 2019 at 7:19:06 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 1/11/2019 1:57 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, January 11, 2019 at 2:46:35 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 1/11/2019 6:01 AM, John Clark wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 8:18 PM Brent Meeker  
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> * > The fine structure constant is e^2/hbar*c.  Those three values are 
 measured independent of any Feynman diagrams*

>>>
>>> Absolutely correct. So if you use Feynman diagrams to predict what some 
>>> physical system is going to do, such as a physical system of 2 electrons 
>>> being hit by a photon of light with a wavelength small enough to contain 
>>> enough energy to prevent the electrons repulsion, then you'd better get a 
>>> number very close to the Fine Structure Constant. If you don't then Feynman 
>>> Diagrams aren't any good. 
>>>
>>> They didn't use 12,672 Feynman Diagrams because they wanted to know 
>>> what the Fine Structure Constant was, they already knew what that 
>>> number was to many decimal places from exparament, they used 12,672 
>>> Feynman Diagrams because they wanted to see if Feynman Diagrams worked. 
>>> And it turned out they worked spectacularly well in that situation, and 
>>> that gives scientists great confidence they can use Feynman Diagrams in 
>>> other situations to calculate what other physical systems will do that 
>>> involve the Electromagnetic Force.
>>>
>>>
>>> There's always an interplay between theory and experiment.  It's 
>>> completely analogous to Maxwell's discovery that light is EM waves. There 
>>> were already experimental values of the permittivity and permeability of 
>>> the vacuum and there were values for the speed of light.  Maxwell showed 
>>> that his theory of EM predicted waves and using the permittivity and 
>>> permeability values the speed of the waves matched that of light.  Now the 
>>> speed of light is a defined constant and so are the permittivity and 
>>> permeability of the vacuum.  So the connecting of the three values by a 
>>> theory allows their values to be defined.  In the case of the anomalous 
>>> magnetic moment of the electron, hbar and c are already defined constants.  
>>> So quantum field theory (for which Feynman diagrams are just a 
>>> calculational tool) linked them and e to g.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> If Feynman Diagrams (tools) are sufficient (to match experimental data) 
>> then Quantum Field Theory can be thrown in the wastebasket.
>>
>>
>> ?? Feynman Diagrams are just a mathematical trick for summing up terms to 
>> approximate the propagator of QFT.  
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
>
> You just make Feynman Diagrams the fundamental elements of the theory, and 
> propagators derived from them.
>
>
> How many diagrams?  The propagator has a clear interpretation as 
> connecting the field at x with the field at y.  Feynman showed that his 
> diagrams provided a good mnemonic for the infinite number of terms that 
> would sum to the propagator.  If you take the diagrams as fundamental you 
> then need to specify how many.
>
>
> Just like histories are made fundamental, and Hilbert Spaces are derived 
> from them.
>
>
> Hilbert spaces are infinite dimensional vector spaces.  So you have the 
> same problem: How many histories?
>
> Brent
>
>
> https://arxiv.org/abs/1002.0589 
>
> Theories do not come from Mount Olympus.
>
> - pt
>
>
As many histories/diagrams as you need. There are supercomputers now.


But what do physicists *really *think is *closer to actual reality*?  
Something closer to Histories/Diagrams or to a Hilbert Space. Do some 
really think that* in fact*  *material reality is actually an 
infinite-dimensional Hilbert Space?*

That is so freaking bizarre, isn't it, when you think about it.

- pt

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is comparable and incomparable between casually disconnected universes?

[Brent Meeker]

On 1/12/2019 2:51 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:



On Friday, January 11, 2019 at 7:19:06 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:



On 1/11/2019 1:57 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:



On Friday, January 11, 2019 at 2:46:35 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:



On 1/11/2019 6:01 AM, John Clark wrote:

On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 8:18 PM Brent Meeker
 wrote:

/> The fine structure constant is e^2/hbar*c.  Those
three values are measured independent of any Feynman
diagrams/


Absolutely correct. So if you use Feynman diagrams to
predict what some physical system is going to do, such as a
physical system of 2 electrons being hit by a photon of
light with a wavelength small enough to contain enough
energy to prevent the electrons repulsion, then you'd better
get a number very close to the Fine Structure Constant. If
you don't then Feynman Diagrams aren't any good.

They didn't use 12,672 Feynman Diagramsbecause they wanted
to know what the Fine Structure Constantwas, they already
knew what that number was to many decimal places from
exparament, they used 12,672 Feynman Diagramsbecause they
wanted to see if Feynman Diagrams worked. And it turned out
they worked spectacularly well in that situation, and that
gives scientists great confidence they can use Feynman
Diagrams in other situations to calculate what other
physical systems will do that involve the Electromagnetic Force.


There's always an interplay between theory and experiment. 
It's completely analogous to Maxwell's discovery that light
is EM waves. There were already experimental values of the
permittivity and permeability of the vacuum and there were
values for the speed of light.  Maxwell showed that his
theory of EM predicted waves and using the permittivity and
permeability values the speed of the waves matched that of
light.  Now the speed of light is a defined constant and so
are the permittivity and permeability of the vacuum.  So the
connecting of the three values by a theory allows their
values to be defined.  In the case of the anomalous magnetic
moment of the electron, hbar and c are already defined
constants.  So quantum field theory (for which Feynman
diagrams are just a calculational tool) linked them and e to g.

Brent




If Feynman Diagrams (tools) are sufficient (to match experimental
data) then Quantum Field Theory can be thrown in the wastebasket.


?? Feynman Diagrams are just a mathematical trick for summing up
terms to approximate the propagator of QFT.

Brent



You just make Feynman Diagrams the fundamental elements of the theory, 
and propagators derived from them.


How many diagrams?  The propagator has a clear interpretation as 
connecting the field at x with the field at y.  Feynman showed that his 
diagrams provided a good mnemonic for the infinite number of terms that 
would sum to the propagator.  If you take the diagrams as fundamental 
you then need to specify how many.




Just like histories are made fundamental, and Hilbert Spaces are 
derived from them.


Hilbert spaces are infinite dimensional vector spaces.  So you have the 
same problem: How many histories?


Brent



            https://arxiv.org/abs/1002.0589

Theories do not come from Mount Olympus.

- pt
--
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


--
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is comparable and incomparable between casually disconnected universes?

[John Clark]

On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 4:57 PM Philip Thrift  wrote:

*> If Feynman Diagrams (tools) are sufficient (to match experimental data)
> then Quantum Field Theory can be thrown in the wastebasket.*
>

You don't have to use Feynman Diagrams, you can think about things the way
Julian Schwinger did and get the same correct answer; but a calculation
that might take Schwinger a month to do Feynman could do in a hour or so with
his diagrams. Both methods are mathematically consistent but neither gives
us a strong intuition why those troublesome physical infinities go away,
all we know is that they do and they give the right answer, aka they agree
with experiment.
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is comparable and incomparable between casually disconnected universes?

[John Clark]

On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 5:29 PM Lawrence Crowell <
goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote:

> *Everyone seems to be overlooking charge renormalization.*
>

I didn't. I said before Feynman you got ridiculous answers when you tried
to calculate, like infinite mass/energy for the electron and probabilities
that don't add up to 1. I also said even though it gave sensible answers
that agreed with exparament and even though he could explain why it worked
mathematically he felt that he had just swept the problem under the rug
because he couldn't explain why it worked physically.  Maybe he was being
too self critical, maybe not.

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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is comparable and incomparable between casually disconnected universes?

[Philip Thrift]

On Friday, January 11, 2019 at 7:19:06 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 1/11/2019 1:57 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, January 11, 2019 at 2:46:35 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 1/11/2019 6:01 AM, John Clark wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 8:18 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:
>>
>> * > The fine structure constant is e^2/hbar*c.  Those three values are 
>>> measured independent of any Feynman diagrams*
>>>
>>
>> Absolutely correct. So if you use Feynman diagrams to predict what some 
>> physical system is going to do, such as a physical system of 2 electrons 
>> being hit by a photon of light with a wavelength small enough to contain 
>> enough energy to prevent the electrons repulsion, then you'd better get a 
>> number very close to the Fine Structure Constant. If you don't then Feynman 
>> Diagrams aren't any good. 
>>
>> They didn't use 12,672 Feynman Diagrams because they wanted to know what 
>> the Fine Structure Constant was, they already knew what that number was 
>> to many decimal places from exparament, they used 12,672 Feynman Diagrams 
>> because they wanted to see if Feynman Diagrams worked. And it turned out 
>> they worked spectacularly well in that situation, and that gives scientists 
>> great confidence they can use Feynman Diagrams in other situations to 
>> calculate what other physical systems will do that involve the 
>> Electromagnetic Force.
>>
>>
>> There's always an interplay between theory and experiment.  It's 
>> completely analogous to Maxwell's discovery that light is EM waves. There 
>> were already experimental values of the permittivity and permeability of 
>> the vacuum and there were values for the speed of light.  Maxwell showed 
>> that his theory of EM predicted waves and using the permittivity and 
>> permeability values the speed of the waves matched that of light.  Now the 
>> speed of light is a defined constant and so are the permittivity and 
>> permeability of the vacuum.  So the connecting of the three values by a 
>> theory allows their values to be defined.  In the case of the anomalous 
>> magnetic moment of the electron, hbar and c are already defined constants.  
>> So quantum field theory (for which Feynman diagrams are just a 
>> calculational tool) linked them and e to g.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>>
>
>
> If Feynman Diagrams (tools) are sufficient (to match experimental data) 
> then Quantum Field Theory can be thrown in the wastebasket.
>
>
> ?? Feynman Diagrams are just a mathematical trick for summing up terms to 
> approximate the propagator of QFT.  
>
> Brent
>


You just make Feynman Diagrams the fundamental elements of the theory, and 
propagators derived from them.

Just like histories are made fundamental, and Hilbert Spaces are derived 
from them.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1002.0589 

Theories do not come from Mount Olympus.

- pt

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is comparable and incomparable between casually disconnected universes?

[Brent Meeker]

On 1/11/2019 1:57 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:



On Friday, January 11, 2019 at 2:46:35 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:



On 1/11/2019 6:01 AM, John Clark wrote:

On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 8:18 PM Brent Meeker > wrote:

/> The fine structure constant is e^2/hbar*c.  Those three
values are measured independent of any Feynman diagrams/


Absolutely correct. So if you use Feynman diagrams to predict
what some physical system is going to do, such as a physical
system of 2 electrons being hit by a photon of light with a
wavelength small enough to contain enough energy to prevent the
electrons repulsion, then you'd better get a number very close to
the Fine Structure Constant. If you don't then Feynman Diagrams
aren't any good.

They didn't use 12,672 Feynman Diagramsbecause they wanted to
know what the Fine Structure Constantwas, they already knew what
that number was to many decimal places from exparament, they used
12,672 Feynman Diagramsbecause they wanted to see if Feynman
Diagrams worked. And it turned out they worked spectacularly well
in that situation, and that gives scientists great confidence
they can use Feynman Diagrams in other situations to calculate
what other physical systems will do that involve the
Electromagnetic Force.


There's always an interplay between theory and experiment. It's
completely analogous to Maxwell's discovery that light is EM
waves. There were already experimental values of the permittivity
and permeability of the vacuum and there were values for the speed
of light.  Maxwell showed that his theory of EM predicted waves
and using the permittivity and permeability values the speed of
the waves matched that of light.  Now the speed of light is a
defined constant and so are the permittivity and permeability of
the vacuum.  So the connecting of the three values by a theory
allows their values to be defined.  In the case of the anomalous
magnetic moment of the electron, hbar and c are already defined
constants.  So quantum field theory (for which Feynman diagrams
are just a calculational tool) linked them and e to g.

Brent




If Feynman Diagrams (tools) are sufficient (to match experimental 
data) then Quantum Field Theory can be thrown in the wastebasket.


?? Feynman Diagrams are just a mathematical trick for summing up terms 
to approximate the propagator of QFT.


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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is comparable and incomparable between casually disconnected universes?

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Friday, January 11, 2019 at 4:51:24 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 9:29 AM Lawrence Crowell  > wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, January 10, 2019 at 7:18:21 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>>
>>> On 1/10/2019 4:21 PM, John Clark wrote:
>>>
>>> *So even Feynman knew that there was no theoretical value for the FSC, 
 alpha.*

>>>
>>> No,  he knew very well there was a theory that could come up with a 
>>> value because his own Feynman Diagrams could do it. But what he didn't know 
>>> and what nobody knows is why his theory came up with that particular pure 
>>> number when he never specifically stuck that number into the rules on how 
>>> the diagrams should operate. 
>>>
>>>
>>> The fine structure constant is e^2/hbar*c.  Those three values are 
>>> measured independent of any Feynman diagrams of quantum field theory.  The 
>>> calculation using Feynman diagrams is of the anamolous magnetic moment.   A 
>>> correction to the value of g that depend on relativistic effects (hence the 
>>> occurence of c in the denominator).  The anamolous magnetic moment can be 
>>> measure experimentally and using Feynman's diagrams and the measured values 
>>> of e, hbar, and c a value can be calculated that includes the relativistic 
>>> effects of quantum field theory. That's why the agreement with measurement 
>>> is significant.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>> Everyone seems to be overlooking charge renormalization.
>>
>
> Do you really think that that is relevant? How?
>
> Bruce 
>

The physical charge is a bare mass corrected by a correction term e = e' + 
δe. Charge adjusts with energy in a renormalization group flow of 
adjustable parameters. At EW unification energy the fine structure constant 
is around 1/128. As E → 0 the RG flow reaches an attractor point that is 
the α = e^2/4πεħc. This is computed for the renormalized physical charge e 
from all radiative corrections possible.

LC
 

>
> 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is comparable and incomparable between casually disconnected universes?

[Bruce Kellett]

On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 9:29 AM Lawrence Crowell <
goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, January 10, 2019 at 7:18:21 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>
>> On 1/10/2019 4:21 PM, John Clark wrote:
>>
>> *So even Feynman knew that there was no theoretical value for the FSC,
>>> alpha.*
>>>
>>
>> No,  he knew very well there was a theory that could come up with a
>> value because his own Feynman Diagrams could do it. But what he didn't know
>> and what nobody knows is why his theory came up with that particular pure
>> number when he never specifically stuck that number into the rules on how
>> the diagrams should operate.
>>
>>
>> The fine structure constant is e^2/hbar*c.  Those three values are
>> measured independent of any Feynman diagrams of quantum field theory.  The
>> calculation using Feynman diagrams is of the anamolous magnetic moment.   A
>> correction to the value of g that depend on relativistic effects (hence the
>> occurence of c in the denominator).  The anamolous magnetic moment can be
>> measure experimentally and using Feynman's diagrams and the measured values
>> of e, hbar, and c a value can be calculated that includes the relativistic
>> effects of quantum field theory. That's why the agreement with measurement
>> is significant.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> Everyone seems to be overlooking charge renormalization.
>

Do you really think that that is relevant? How?

Bruce

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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is comparable and incomparable between casually disconnected universes?

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Thursday, January 10, 2019 at 7:18:21 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 1/10/2019 4:21 PM, John Clark wrote:
>
> *So even Feynman knew that there was no theoretical value for the FSC, 
>> alpha.*
>>
>
> No,  he knew very well there was a theory that could come up with a value 
> because his own Feynman Diagrams could do it. But what he didn't know and 
> what nobody knows is why his theory came up with that particular pure 
> number when he never specifically stuck that number into the rules on how 
> the diagrams should operate. 
>
>
> The fine structure constant is e^2/hbar*c.  Those three values are 
> measured independent of any Feynman diagrams of quantum field theory.  The 
> calculation using Feynman diagrams is of the anamolous magnetic moment.   A 
> correction to the value of g that depend on relativistic effects (hence the 
> occurence of c in the denominator).  The anamolous magnetic moment can be 
> measure experimentally and using Feynman's diagrams and the measured values 
> of e, hbar, and c a value can be calculated that includes the relativistic 
> effects of quantum field theory. That's why the agreement with measurement 
> is significant.
>
> Brent
>

Everyone seems to be overlooking charge renormalization.

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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is comparable and incomparable between casually disconnected universes?

[Philip Thrift]

On Friday, January 11, 2019 at 2:46:35 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 1/11/2019 6:01 AM, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 8:18 PM Brent Meeker  > wrote:
>
> * > The fine structure constant is e^2/hbar*c.  Those three values are 
>> measured independent of any Feynman diagrams*
>>
>
> Absolutely correct. So if you use Feynman diagrams to predict what some 
> physical system is going to do, such as a physical system of 2 electrons 
> being hit by a photon of light with a wavelength small enough to contain 
> enough energy to prevent the electrons repulsion, then you'd better get a 
> number very close to the Fine Structure Constant. If you don't then Feynman 
> Diagrams aren't any good. 
>
> They didn't use 12,672 Feynman Diagrams because they wanted to know what 
> the Fine Structure Constant was, they already knew what that number was 
> to many decimal places from exparament, they used 12,672 Feynman Diagrams 
> because they wanted to see if Feynman Diagrams worked. And it turned out 
> they worked spectacularly well in that situation, and that gives scientists 
> great confidence they can use Feynman Diagrams in other situations to 
> calculate what other physical systems will do that involve the 
> Electromagnetic Force.
>
>
> There's always an interplay between theory and experiment.  It's 
> completely analogous to Maxwell's discovery that light is EM waves. There 
> were already experimental values of the permittivity and permeability of 
> the vacuum and there were values for the speed of light.  Maxwell showed 
> that his theory of EM predicted waves and using the permittivity and 
> permeability values the speed of the waves matched that of light.  Now the 
> speed of light is a defined constant and so are the permittivity and 
> permeability of the vacuum.  So the connecting of the three values by a 
> theory allows their values to be defined.  In the case of the anomalous 
> magnetic moment of the electron, hbar and c are already defined constants.  
> So quantum field theory (for which Feynman diagrams are just a 
> calculational tool) linked them and e to g.
>
> Brent
>
>


If Feynman Diagrams (tools) are sufficient (to match experimental data) 
then Quantum Field Theory can be thrown in the wastebasket.

- pt 

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is comparable and incomparable between casually disconnected universes?

[Brent Meeker]

On 1/11/2019 6:01 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 8:18 PM Brent Meeker > wrote:


/> The fine structure constant is e^2/hbar*c.  Those three values
are measured independent of any Feynman diagrams/


Absolutely correct. So if you use Feynman diagrams to predict what 
some physical system is going to do, such as a physical system of 2 
electrons being hit by a photon of light with a wavelength small 
enough to contain enough energy to prevent the electrons repulsion, 
then you'd better get a number very close to the Fine Structure 
Constant. If you don't then Feynman Diagrams aren't any good.


They didn't use 12,672 Feynman Diagramsbecause they wanted to know 
what the Fine Structure Constantwas, they already knew what that 
number was to many decimal places from exparament, they used 12,672 
Feynman Diagramsbecause they wanted to see if Feynman Diagrams worked. 
And it turned out they worked spectacularly well in that situation, 
and that gives scientists great confidence they can use Feynman 
Diagrams in other situations to calculate what other physical systems 
will do that involve the Electromagnetic Force.


There's always an interplay between theory and experiment.  It's 
completely analogous to Maxwell's discovery that light is EM waves. 
There were already experimental values of the permittivity and 
permeability of the vacuum and there were values for the speed of 
light.  Maxwell showed that his theory of EM predicted waves and using 
the permittivity and permeability values the speed of the waves matched 
that of light.  Now the speed of light is a defined constant and so are 
the permittivity and permeability of the vacuum.  So the connecting of 
the three values by a theory allows their values to be defined.  In the 
case of the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron, hbar and c are 
already defined constants. So quantum field theory (for which Feynman 
diagrams are just a calculational tool) linked them and e to g.


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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is comparable and incomparable between casually disconnected universes?

[Brent Meeker]

On 1/11/2019 2:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I suspect Planck constant to be not computable, because if we extract 
QM from arithmetic, the Planck constant might very well related to the 
mechanist substitution level.


Planck's constant is not dimensionless. So its value is 1...in proper units.

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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is comparable and incomparable between casually disconnected universes?

[John Clark]

On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 8:18 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:

* > The fine structure constant is e^2/hbar*c.  Those three values are
> measured independent of any Feynman diagrams*
>

Absolutely correct. So if you use Feynman diagrams to predict what some
physical system is going to do, such as a physical system of 2 electrons
being hit by a photon of light with a wavelength small enough to contain
enough energy to prevent the electrons repulsion, then you'd better get a
number very close to the Fine Structure Constant. If you don't then Feynman
Diagrams aren't any good.

They didn't use 12,672 Feynman Diagrams because they wanted to know what
the Fine Structure Constant was, they already knew what that number was to
many decimal places from exparament, they used 12,672 Feynman Diagrams
because they wanted to see if Feynman Diagrams worked. And it turned out
they worked spectacularly well in that situation, and that gives scientists
great confidence they can use Feynman Diagrams in other situations to
calculate what other physical systems will do that involve the
Electromagnetic Force.

I asked this question twice before but have still not received an answer, if
checking a theoretical prediction against a measured value is not the way
to tell the difference between a good physical theory and a bad one what on
earth is?

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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is comparable and incomparable between casually disconnected universes?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 11 Jan 2019, at 12:18, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Friday, January 11, 2019 at 4:16:13 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 11 Jan 2019, at 10:03, Philip Thrift > 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Thursday, January 10, 2019 at 8:27:20 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 12:18 PM Brent Meeker > wrote:
>> On 1/10/2019 4:21 PM, John Clark wrote:
>>> So even Feynman knew that there was no theoretical value for the FSC, alpha.
>>> 
>>> No,  he knew very well there was a theory that could come up with a value 
>>> because his own Feynman Diagrams could do it. But what he didn't know and 
>>> what nobody knows is why his theory came up with that particular pure 
>>> number when he never specifically stuck that number into the rules on how 
>>> the diagrams should operate.
>> 
>> The fine structure constant is e^2/hbar*c.  Those three values are measured 
>> independent of any Feynman diagrams of quantum field theory.  The 
>> calculation using Feynman diagrams is of the anamolous magnetic moment.   A 
>> correction to the value of g that depend on relativistic effects (hence the 
>> occurence of c in the denominator).  The anamolous magnetic moment can be 
>> measure experimentally and using Feynman's diagrams and the measured values 
>> of e, hbar, and c a value can be calculated that includes the relativistic 
>> effects of quantum field theory. That's why the agreement with measurement 
>> is significant.
>> 
>> Right. The relation between fundamental physical constants, alpha = 
>> e^2/hbar*c, is the closest one gets to a "theoretical" value for the FSC. 
>> But that defines it in terms of other measured quantities. (Except that 
>> these days, c is a defined number, not a measured physical parameter.) The 
>> CODATA group use these theoretical relationships between constants, together 
>> with the best available measurements, to make simultaneous fits to all the 
>> constants and the data.That is where independent, "best values" for these 
>> parameters come from. It is using these in the Feynman diagram calculation 
>> of corrections to g-2 that gives the remarkable agreement between theory and 
>> experiment. The point, though, is that the value of the FSC used in 
>> calculating g-2 must be obtained independently of the g-2 measurement or 
>> else it is not a test of QED.. Conversely, of course, the g-2 measurement 
>> can be use to estimate the FSC independently of other measurements.
>> 
>> Bruce
>> 
>> 
>> Brent
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> As the Robert Geroch, James Hartle paper points out
>> 
>> the issue of whether the existence of an algorithm to implement a theory 
>> should be adopted
>> as a criterion for acceptable physical theories. 
>> 
>> if you want measurable constants to be computable, adopt a theory that does 
>> so.
> 
> Some constant might be intrinsically not computable. Normally, the physical 
> laws should at some point take into account the probability of (self) 
> halting, which would introduce a non computable constant in nature, although 
> it would be computable from the halting oracle. Mechanism prevents the 
> physical reality from being entirely computable. I suspect Planck constant to 
> be not computable, because if we extract QM from arithmetic, the Planck 
> constant might very well related to the mechanist substitution level.
> 
> We cannot choose a theory according to our metaphysical state, especially in 
> metaphysics. It has to be corroborated by the facts.
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just as an example of another theory
> 
> The Cellular Automaton Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics
> Gerard ’t Hooft
> https://arxiv.org/pdf/1405.1548.pdf
> 
> What is computable in that theory?

Everything apparently, which makes it incompatible with mechanism, ironically 
enough.

I am not convinced either that super-determinisms makes sense, but this 
requires more thought.

I will take some time to read that book, but a first glance shows that it does 
not distinguish 3p, 1p, 1p-plural, so if mechanism is correct, something is 
necessarily missing. 

If QM is true and Mechanism is true, logicians and physicists should meet at 
the middle of the mind-body bridge, but ’t Hooft might depart a bit from the 
part of Everett which confirms mechanism.

> 
> Not saying this theory is a good one, but a theory is a theory is a theory.

Yes, that follows from x = x. We agree on everything apparently (despite 
working in antipodal conception of reality).

Bruno 



> 
> - pt
> 
> -- 
> 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> <

Re: What is comparable and incomparable between casually disconnected universes?

[Philip Thrift]

On Friday, January 11, 2019 at 4:16:13 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 11 Jan 2019, at 10:03, Philip Thrift > 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, January 10, 2019 at 8:27:20 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 12:18 PM Brent Meeker  
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/10/2019 4:21 PM, John Clark wrote:
>>>
>>> *So even Feynman knew that there was no theoretical value for the FSC, 
 alpha.*

>>>
>>> No,  he knew very well there was a theory that could come up with a 
>>> value because his own Feynman Diagrams could do it. But what he didn't know 
>>> and what nobody knows is why his theory came up with that particular pure 
>>> number when he never specifically stuck that number into the rules on how 
>>> the diagrams should operate. 
>>>
>>>
>>> The fine structure constant is e^2/hbar*c.  Those three values are 
>>> measured independent of any Feynman diagrams of quantum field theory.  The 
>>> calculation using Feynman diagrams is of the anamolous magnetic moment.   A 
>>> correction to the value of g that depend on relativistic effects (hence the 
>>> occurence of c in the denominator).  The anamolous magnetic moment can be 
>>> measure experimentally and using Feynman's diagrams and the measured values 
>>> of e, hbar, and c a value can be calculated that includes the relativistic 
>>> effects of quantum field theory. That's why the agreement with measurement 
>>> is significant.
>>>
>>
>> Right. The relation between fundamental physical constants, alpha = 
>> e^2/hbar*c, is the closest one gets to a "theoretical" value for the FSC. 
>> But that defines it in terms of other measured quantities. (Except that 
>> these days, c is a defined number, not a measured physical parameter.) The 
>> CODATA group use these theoretical relationships between constants, 
>> together with the best available measurements, to make simultaneous fits to 
>> all the constants and the data.That is where independent, "best values" for 
>> these parameters come from. It is using these in the Feynman diagram 
>> calculation of corrections to g-2 that gives the remarkable agreement 
>> between theory and experiment. The point, though, is that the value of the 
>> FSC used in calculating g-2 must be obtained independently of the g-2 
>> measurement or else it is not a test of QED.. Conversely, of course, the 
>> g-2 measurement can be use to estimate the FSC independently of other 
>> measurements.
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> As the Robert Geroch, James Hartle paper points out
>
> *the issue of whether the existence of an algorithm to implement a 
> theory should be adopted*
> *as a criterion for acceptable physical theories.* 
>
> if you want measurable constants to be computable, adopt a theory that 
> does so.
>
>
> Some constant might be intrinsically not computable. Normally, the 
> physical laws should at some point take into account the probability of 
> (self) halting, which would introduce a non computable constant in nature, 
> although it would be computable from the halting oracle. Mechanism prevents 
> the physical reality from being entirely computable. I suspect Planck 
> constant to be not computable, because if we extract QM from arithmetic, 
> the Planck constant might very well related to the mechanist substitution 
> level.
>
> We cannot choose a theory according to our metaphysical state, especially 
> in metaphysics. It has to be corroborated by the facts.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
Just as an example of another theory

*The Cellular Automaton Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics*
Gerard ’t Hooft
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1405.1548.pdf

What is computable in that theory?

Not saying this theory is a good one, but a theory is a theory is a theory.

- pt

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is comparable and incomparable between casually disconnected universes?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 11 Jan 2019, at 10:03, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Thursday, January 10, 2019 at 8:27:20 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 12:18 PM Brent Meeker  > wrote:
> On 1/10/2019 4:21 PM, John Clark wrote:
>> So even Feynman knew that there was no theoretical value for the FSC, alpha.
>> 
>> No,  he knew very well there was a theory that could come up with a value 
>> because his own Feynman Diagrams could do it. But what he didn't know and 
>> what nobody knows is why his theory came up with that particular pure number 
>> when he never specifically stuck that number into the rules on how the 
>> diagrams should operate.
> 
> The fine structure constant is e^2/hbar*c.  Those three values are measured 
> independent of any Feynman diagrams of quantum field theory.  The calculation 
> using Feynman diagrams is of the anamolous magnetic moment.   A correction to 
> the value of g that depend on relativistic effects (hence the occurence of c 
> in the denominator).  The anamolous magnetic moment can be measure 
> experimentally and using Feynman's diagrams and the measured values of e, 
> hbar, and c a value can be calculated that includes the relativistic effects 
> of quantum field theory. That's why the agreement with measurement is 
> significant.
> 
> Right. The relation between fundamental physical constants, alpha = 
> e^2/hbar*c, is the closest one gets to a "theoretical" value for the FSC. But 
> that defines it in terms of other measured quantities. (Except that these 
> days, c is a defined number, not a measured physical parameter.) The CODATA 
> group use these theoretical relationships between constants, together with 
> the best available measurements, to make simultaneous fits to all the 
> constants and the data.That is where independent, "best values" for these 
> parameters come from. It is using these in the Feynman diagram calculation of 
> corrections to g-2 that gives the remarkable agreement between theory and 
> experiment. The point, though, is that the value of the FSC used in 
> calculating g-2 must be obtained independently of the g-2 measurement or else 
> it is not a test of QED.. Conversely, of course, the g-2 measurement can be 
> use to estimate the FSC independently of other measurements.
> 
> Bruce
> 
> 
> Brent
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As the Robert Geroch, James Hartle paper points out
> 
> the issue of whether the existence of an algorithm to implement a theory 
> should be adopted
> as a criterion for acceptable physical theories. 
> 
> if you want measurable constants to be computable, adopt a theory that does 
> so.

Some constant might be intrinsically not computable. Normally, the physical 
laws should at some point take into account the probability of (self) halting, 
which would introduce a non computable constant in nature, although it would be 
computable from the halting oracle. Mechanism prevents the physical reality 
from being entirely computable. I suspect Planck constant to be not computable, 
because if we extract QM from arithmetic, the Planck constant might very well 
related to the mechanist substitution level.

We cannot choose a theory according to our metaphysical state, especially in 
metaphysics. It has to be corroborated by the facts.

Bruno



> 
> - pt
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is comparable and incomparable between casually disconnected universes?

[Philip Thrift]

On Thursday, January 10, 2019 at 8:27:20 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 12:18 PM Brent Meeker  > wrote:
>
>> On 1/10/2019 4:21 PM, John Clark wrote:
>>
>> *So even Feynman knew that there was no theoretical value for the FSC, 
>>> alpha.*
>>>
>>
>> No,  he knew very well there was a theory that could come up with a 
>> value because his own Feynman Diagrams could do it. But what he didn't know 
>> and what nobody knows is why his theory came up with that particular pure 
>> number when he never specifically stuck that number into the rules on how 
>> the diagrams should operate. 
>>
>>
>> The fine structure constant is e^2/hbar*c.  Those three values are 
>> measured independent of any Feynman diagrams of quantum field theory.  The 
>> calculation using Feynman diagrams is of the anamolous magnetic moment.   A 
>> correction to the value of g that depend on relativistic effects (hence the 
>> occurence of c in the denominator).  The anamolous magnetic moment can be 
>> measure experimentally and using Feynman's diagrams and the measured values 
>> of e, hbar, and c a value can be calculated that includes the relativistic 
>> effects of quantum field theory. That's why the agreement with measurement 
>> is significant.
>>
>
> Right. The relation between fundamental physical constants, alpha = 
> e^2/hbar*c, is the closest one gets to a "theoretical" value for the FSC. 
> But that defines it in terms of other measured quantities. (Except that 
> these days, c is a defined number, not a measured physical parameter.) The 
> CODATA group use these theoretical relationships between constants, 
> together with the best available measurements, to make simultaneous fits to 
> all the constants and the data.That is where independent, "best values" for 
> these parameters come from. It is using these in the Feynman diagram 
> calculation of corrections to g-2 that gives the remarkable agreement 
> between theory and experiment. The point, though, is that the value of the 
> FSC used in calculating g-2 must be obtained independently of the g-2 
> measurement or else it is not a test of QED.. Conversely, of course, the 
> g-2 measurement can be use to estimate the FSC independently of other 
> measurements.
>
> Bruce
>
>
>> Brent
>>
>





As the Robert Geroch, James Hartle paper points out

*the issue of whether the existence of an algorithm to implement a 
theory should be adopted*
*as a criterion for acceptable physical theories.* 

if you want measurable constants to be computable, adopt a theory that does 
so.

- pt



-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is comparable and incomparable between casually disconnected universes?

[Bruce Kellett]

On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 12:18 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:

> On 1/10/2019 4:21 PM, John Clark wrote:
>
> *So even Feynman knew that there was no theoretical value for the FSC,
>> alpha.*
>>
>
> No,  he knew very well there was a theory that could come up with a value
> because his own Feynman Diagrams could do it. But what he didn't know and
> what nobody knows is why his theory came up with that particular pure
> number when he never specifically stuck that number into the rules on how
> the diagrams should operate.
>
>
> The fine structure constant is e^2/hbar*c.  Those three values are
> measured independent of any Feynman diagrams of quantum field theory.  The
> calculation using Feynman diagrams is of the anamolous magnetic moment.   A
> correction to the value of g that depend on relativistic effects (hence the
> occurence of c in the denominator).  The anamolous magnetic moment can be
> measure experimentally and using Feynman's diagrams and the measured values
> of e, hbar, and c a value can be calculated that includes the relativistic
> effects of quantum field theory. That's why the agreement with measurement
> is significant.
>

Right. The relation between fundamental physical constants, alpha =
e^2/hbar*c, is the closest one gets to a "theoretical" value for the FSC.
But that defines it in terms of other measured quantities. (Except that
these days, c is a defined number, not a measured physical parameter.) The
CODATA group use these theoretical relationships between constants,
together with the best available measurements, to make simultaneous fits to
all the constants and the data.That is where independent, "best values" for
these parameters come from. It is using these in the Feynman diagram
calculation of corrections to g-2 that gives the remarkable agreement
between theory and experiment. The point, though, is that the value of the
FSC used in calculating g-2 must be obtained independently of the g-2
measurement or else it is not a test of QED.. Conversely, of course, the
g-2 measurement can be use to estimate the FSC independently of other
measurements.

Bruce


> 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is comparable and incomparable between casually disconnected universes?

[Brent Meeker]

On 1/10/2019 4:21 PM, John Clark wrote:


/So even Feynman knew that there was no theoretical value for the
FSC, alpha./


No,  he knew very well there was a theory that could come up with a 
value because his own Feynman Diagrams could do it. But what he didn't 
know and what nobody knows is why his theory came up with that 
particular pure number when he never specifically stuck that number 
into the rules on how the diagrams should operate.


The fine structure constant is e^2/hbar*c.  Those three values are 
measured independent of any Feynman diagrams of quantum field theory.  
The calculation using Feynman diagrams is of the anamolous magnetic 
moment.   A correction to the value of g that depend on relativistic 
effects (hence the occurence of c in the denominator). The anamolous 
magnetic moment can be measure experimentally and using Feynman's 
diagrams and the measured values of e, hbar, and c a value can be 
calculated that includes the relativistic effects of quantum field 
theory. That's why the agreement with measurement is significant.


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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is comparable and incomparable between casually disconnected universes?

[John Clark]

On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 10:53 PM Bruce Kellett  wrote:


> > *There is no theoretical value".*
>

>From a book on spectrography by Norman Ramsey discussing the lamb Shift,
the very thing that led to the discovery of the Fine Structure Constant in
the first place:

"*The atomic hydrogen hyperfine separation can be accurately calculated
from theory so comparison to the experimental value provides a crucial test
for a fundamental theory. Historically it was the disagreement between the
theoretical and experimental value of this quantity that stimulated
Schwinger's development of relativistic quantum electrodynamics (QED)*."

Lamb Shift


>> Nobody uses 12,672 Feynman Diagrams to find a measured result.
>>
>
> >The authors of the PRL paper did!
>

I don't know what the "PRL paper" is, I'm talking about the same paper I
referred to before:

Improved Value of the Fine Structure Constant


And that paper specifically discusses what they need "*To compare the
theoretical prediction with the measurement*". It also makes clear the
importance of testing the theoretical predictions made by QED against
actual measurements:

"*The anomalous magnetic moment a e ≡ ( g −2) /2 of the electron has played
the central role in testing the validity of quantum electrodynamics (QED)*"

They also make it clear then are not the ones who made the experimental
measurement:

 "*On the experimental side the measurement of the Harvard group has
reached the astonishing precision*"

But they've calculated a even more accurate value than the experimenters:

 "*we have managed to evaluate it with a precision which leads to theory
more accurate than that of the measurement*"

So now it's up to the experimenters to do better and see if the theoretical
prediction is still correct.


>  > *in the final analysis, the fine structure constant is an arbitrary
>>> physical constant that must be measured*
>>>
>>
>> So is the speed of light, but Maxwell's theory can calculate that speed
>>
>
> > *Maxwell's theory gives the speed in terms of the permittivity and
> permeability of the vacuum, both of which were measured quantities in
> Maxwell's day. *
>

And they still are. if those 2 values were different the speed of light
would be different and the General Theory of Relativity would be different.
And if the Fine Structure Constant were different then Feynman's theory
would have to be different because the existing rules on how the diagrams
work would have produce a result that disagreed with experimental results.

Feynman didn't devise his rules specifically to produce a number close to
137 and there is no obvious reason to think that it would, and yet it does
and it agrees with the measured value to a astonishing degree; 40 years ago
he bragged that his theory was like predicting the distance between New
York and LA to the distance of a human hair, but measurement has gotten
about 60 times better since then so today it more like the distance between
New York and the moon. It's the most accurate prediction in all of science.
He found all this very mysterious and so do I.


> *> But, because of the success of special relativity, they are nowadays
> defined constants, as is the speed of light. *
>

Maxwell's theory requires modification because of Quantum Mechanics but as
far as special relativity is concerned absolutely nothing about Maxwell
needs to change.


> > *One could, therefore say that the speed of light is a theoretical
> value, not a measured value.*
>

Yes, people can say anything regardless of how silly. If the speed of light
or any other law of physics were different our theories would be different,
they'd have to be because theories must dance to experiment's drum not the
other way around.

*> You really ought to read the Wikipedia article more carefully, rather
> than just using it to obtain the CODATA best-fit value, and the value
> measured by the latest g-2 experiment. (Yes, the one calculating all 12,672
> Feynman diagrams to the tenth order.)*
>
> *"The most precise value of α obtained experimentally (as of 2012) is
> based on a measurement of g using a one-electron so-called "quantum
> cyclotron" apparatus,*
>

Right, that's how you get the measured value and it turns out to be
137.035999139


> > together with a calculation via the theory of QED that involved 12672
>  tenth-order Feynman diagrams:[
> *α*−1 = 137.035999173(35)."
>

Right, that's how you get the value Feynman's diagrams predict and it's
137.035999173 in excellent agreement with measurement and therefore we
conclude that Feynman's theory was a good theory.

I asked this before but got no answer, if checking a 

Re: What is comparable and incomparable between casually disconnected universes?

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Wednesday, January 9, 2019 at 8:49:41 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 1:36 PM John Clark  > wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 7:49 PM Bruce Kellett > > wrote:
>>
>> >>The following 2012 article in Physical Review letters describes a QED 
 calculation involving 12,672 tenth order Feynman diagrams used to 
 calculate both the magnetic moment of the electron and the inverse of the 
 Fine Structure Constant and obtaining a value of 137.035999173 which 
 is almost exactly the same as the experimentally derived value:

>>>
>>> >That is an experimentally derived value!
>>>
>>
>> No,  the experimentally derived value is 137.035999139
>>
>> *>Your original claim was that the fine structure constant was 
>>> computable. *
>>
>>
>> I said that was my intuition, I don't have a proof.   
>>
>> > *it is a physical constant that must be measured.*
>>
>>
>> I know, that's why I said the Fine Structure Constant was defined 
>> physically not mathematically,  and that's why any physical theory that is 
>> in conflict with that measured value for the FSC can not be a good theory. 
>> Feynman's QED is not in conflict with it, in fact it produced the closest 
>> agreement between experiment and theory in the entire history of science.
>>
>> > *But it is not computable from first principles,*  
>>
>>
>> That depends on what the first principle is, if its charged particles 
>> behave the way Feynman said they do then you can compute a value for the 
>> FSC that is very very close to the best measured one. Maybe when 
>> measurement becomes more precise a statistically significant discrepancy 
>> will show up between the experimental value and the theoretical value,
>>
>
> There is no theoretical value". All the values that we have are measured 
> -- often in different ways, or from the results of different experiments to 
> measure the same things, such as g-2, so there can be a range of measured 
> results. The CODATA value is their best-fit value to the whole range of 
> different experimental measurements. But in the final analysis, the fine 
> structure constant is an arbitrary physical constant that must be measured 
> -- there is no "theoretical value".
>
> Bruce
>

Yes and no. The speed of light and Planck's constant for instance are 
measured input. The charge is both measured and estimated with charge 
renormalization. 

LC
 

>
> if so we'll have to fine something better than Feynman Diagrams because in 
>> science when experiment and theory fight experiment always wins.  
>>  
>>
>>> *>You have to define what you mean by "computable". *
>>
>>
>> The Fine Structure Constant is computable if and only if there exists a 
>> finite algorithm that can work on a finite amount of data and produce a 
>> number in a finite amount of time that is arbitrarily close to it.  I don't 
>> claim to have such a algorithm I'm just saying my hunch is it exists and 
>> Feynman gives us reason for optimism. But I could be wrong.
>>
>

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is comparable and incomparable between casually disconnected universes?

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Wednesday, January 9, 2019 at 4:01:46 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 7:53 AM John Clark  > wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 1:58 PM Philip Thrift > > wrote:
>>
>> >> Is the Fine Structure Constant a rational number? Is it a algebraic 
 number? Is it a transcendental number? Nobody knows.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *> Is it computable at least?*
>>
>>
>> Because the Fine Structure Constant has a physical and not a 
>> mathematical definition my intuition tells me it must be computable; and 
>> indeed we've already computed a very good approximation of it and there is 
>> no reason to think we couldn't do even better if we had faster computers 
>> that could sum up more of those Feynman diagrams.  
>>
>
> Rubbish. The fine structure constant is not computable by Feynman 
> diagrams. What might be confusing you is that QED calculations of 
> physically measurable  things like the Lamb Shift and g-2 for the electron 
> depend on the value of the FSC. Comparing the calculations with experiment 
> gives an accurate value for the FSC. the fine structure constant itself is 
> an arbitrary constant of nature, and not directly callable.
>
> Bruce
>

Huh? The QED industry of computing Feynman diagrams is to find more 
accurate charge renormalization. That in turn is what computes a more 
accurate fine structure constant.

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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is comparable and incomparable between casually disconnected universes?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 10 Jan 2019, at 07:39, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Wednesday, January 9, 2019 at 6:49:05 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 11:38 AM John Clark  > wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 5:01 PM Bruce Kellett  > wrote:
> 
> > Rubbish. The fine structure constant is not computable by Feynman diagrams. 
> > What might be confusing you is that QED calculations of physically 
> > measurable  things like the Lamb Shift and g-2 for the electron depend on 
> > the value of the FSC.
> 
> How is using Feynman diagrams to compute the Lamb Shift Shift (which depends 
> on the Fine Structure Constant) different from using Feynman diagrams to 
> compute the Fine Structure Constant?  After all physics didn't determine the 
> Lamb Shift from the Fine Structure Constant, they determined the Fine 
> Structure Constant by looking at the Lamb Shift, in fact the very very fine 
> lines in the spectrum of Hydrogen is how the Fine Structure Constant got its 
> name. 
> 
> The following 2012 article in Physical Review letters describes a QED 
> calculation involving 12,672 tenth order Feynman diagrams used to calculate 
> both the magnetic moment of the electron and the inverse of the Fine 
> Structure Constant and obtaining a value of 137.035999173 which is almost 
> exactly the same as the experimentally derived value:
> 
> That is an experimentally derived value!
>  
> Improved Value of the Fine Structure Constant 
>    
> 
> John K Clark
> 
> Your original claim was that the fine structure constant was computable. But 
> it is not computable from first principles, it is a physical constant that 
> must be measured. The fact that computations might be involved in getting the 
> value from measurements does not mean that the FSC is itself computable.
> 
> You have to define what you mean by "computable". The FSC is a measured 
> quantity, not computable in the way pi or e are computable from mathematical 
> formulae.
> 
> Bruce 
> 
> 
> 
> Constants enter the vocabulary of physics by means of theories. A constant is 
> an entity of a theory, but a constant is not an entity of nature. Nature may 
> have constancy, but it's theories that have constants. 
> 
>Theory != Nature. 

A theory of nature is certainly different of nature, like the brain+telescope 
is different from a far away galaxy.

Note that a theory of the arithmetical reality (like PA or even ZF) is also 
different than the arithmetical reality.

Then, a theory of arithmetic can be seen as a number, like the Gödel number of 
the provability predicate, and a large part of the metamathematics is emulated 
in arithmetic. The arithmetical reality reflects the “talks” of the numbers 
about arithmetic and about themselves, and the arithmetical reality explores 
itself. Physics is retrieved by what the machine can predict in some first 
person plural partially sharable way.

Geometry, analysis, and physics are the unavoidable tools that the “number” 
invents to understand themselves. But consciousness of the human type can 
require a relative rarity combined with a huge continuous explosion in the 
multiple representation. The bottom is highly and completely symmetrical, but 
from inside we break the symmetries (“we” the universal machines).

Bruno



> 
> - pt
> 
> -- 
> 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is comparable and incomparable between casually disconnected universes?

[Philip Thrift]

On Wednesday, January 9, 2019 at 6:49:05 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 11:38 AM John Clark  > wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 5:01 PM Bruce Kellett > > wrote:
>>
>> *> Rubbish. The fine structure constant is not computable by Feynman 
>>> diagrams. What might be confusing you is that QED calculations of 
>>> physically measurable  things like the Lamb Shift and g-2 for the electron 
>>> depend on the value of the FSC.*
>>>
>>
>> How is using Feynman diagrams to compute the Lamb Shift Shift (which 
>> depends on the Fine Structure Constant) different from using Feynman 
>> diagrams to compute the Fine Structure Constant?  After all physics 
>> didn't determine the Lamb Shift from the Fine Structure Constant, they 
>> determined the Fine Structure Constant by looking at the Lamb Shift, in 
>> fact the very very fine lines in the spectrum of Hydrogen is how the Fine 
>> Structure Constant got its name. 
>>
>> The following 2012 article in Physical Review letters describes a QED 
>> calculation involving 12,672 tenth order Feynman diagrams used to 
>> calculate both the magnetic moment of the electron and the inverse of the 
>> Fine Structure Constant and obtaining a value of 137.035999173 which is 
>> almost exactly the same as the experimentally derived value:
>>
>
> That is an experimentally derived value!
>  
>
>> Improved Value of the Fine Structure Constant 
>>    
>>
>> John K Clark
>>
>
> Your original claim was that the fine structure constant was computable. 
> But it is not computable from first principles, it is a physical constant 
> that must be measured. The fact that computations might be involved in 
> getting the value from measurements does not mean that the FSC is itself 
> computable.
>
> You have to define what you mean by "computable". The FSC is a measured 
> quantity, not computable in the way pi or e are computable from 
> mathematical formulae.
>
> Bruce 
>



Constants enter the vocabulary of physics by means of theories. *A constant 
is an entity of a theory,* but a constant is not an entity of nature. 
Nature may have *constancy*, but it's theories that have constants. 

   *Theory != Nature. *

- pt

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is comparable and incomparable between casually disconnected universes?

[Bruce Kellett]

On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 2:30 PM John Clark  wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 9:49 PM Bruce Kellett 
> wrote:
>
> > *There is no theoretical value".*
>>
>
> The measure value is 137.035999139, the value obtained from 12,672 Feynman
> Diagrams is 137.035999173. If you don't like the name "theoretical value"
> for that second number then call is something else. How about "Bob"?
>
> *> All the values that we have are measured -- often in different ways, or
>> from the results of different experiments to measure the same things, such
>> as g-2, so there can be a range of measured results.*
>
>
> Nobody uses 12,672 Feynman Diagrams to find a measured result.
>

The authors of the PRL paper did!


>
>
>>  > in the final analysis, the fine structure constant is an arbitrary
>> physical constant that must be measured
>>
>
> So is the speed of light, but Maxwell's theory can calculate that speed
>

Maxwell's theory gives the speed in terms of the permittivity and
permeability of the vacuum, both of which were measured quantities in
Maxwell's day. But, because of the success of special relativity, they are
nowadays defined constants, as is the speed of light. So there is no such
comparison as between the calculated speed and the measured speed of light
-- the speed of light is a defined exact constant which is used to define
the relationship between the units of time and distance. One could,
therefore say that the speed of light is a theoretical value, not a
measured value.

and the fact that the calculated speed agrees with the measured speed tells
> us that Maxwell had a good theory. The reason scientists went to the
> considerable trouble of calculating the Fine Structure Constant from 12,672
> Feynman Diagrams when they already knew from measurement what the correct
> answer is was to test the theory and see if it still worked at that
> incredible degree of accuracy. And It did work. Why else would physicists
> have such enormous confidence in Feynman's diagrams? How else can you tell
> the difference between a good physical theory and a bad one?
>

You really ought to read the Wikipedia article more carefully, rather than
just using it to obtain the CODATA best-fit value, and the value measured
by the latest g-2 experiment. (Yes, the one calculating all 12,672 Feynman
diagrams to the tenth order.)

"The most precise value of *α* obtained experimentally (as of 2012) is
based on a measurement of *g* using a one-electron so-called "quantum
cyclotron" apparatus, together with a calculation via the theory of QED
that involved 12672 tenth-order Feynman diagrams
:[6]

*α*−1 = 137.035999173(35)."
So that value is obtained experimentally, i.e., a measured result. It is no
more a theoretical value than is the value of the mass of the electron (or
the mass of the sun, for that matter.)

As Feynman says:
Immediately you would like to know where this number for a coupling comes
from: is it related to pi or perhaps to the base of natural logarithms?
Nobody knows. It's one of the greatest damn mysteries of physics: a magic
number that comes to us with no understanding by man. You might say the
"hand of God" wrote that number, and "we don't know how He pushed his
pencil." We know what kind of a dance to do experimentally to measure this
number very accurately, but we don't know what kind of dance to do on the
computer to make this number come out, without putting it in secretly!

So even Feynman knew that there was no theoretical value for the FSC, alpha.

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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is comparable and incomparable between casually disconnected universes?

[John Clark]

On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 9:49 PM Bruce Kellett  wrote:

> *There is no theoretical value".*
>

The measure value is 137.035999139, the value obtained from 12,672 Feynman
Diagrams is 137.035999173. If you don't like the name "theoretical value"
for that second number then call is something else. How about "Bob"?

*> All the values that we have are measured -- often in different ways, or
> from the results of different experiments to measure the same things, such
> as g-2, so there can be a range of measured results.*


Nobody uses 12,672 Feynman Diagrams to find a measured result.


>  > in the final analysis, the fine structure constant is an arbitrary
> physical constant that must be measured
>

So is the speed of light, but Maxwell's theory can calculate that speed and
the fact that the calculated speed agrees with the measured speed tells us
that Maxwell had a good theory. The reason scientists went to the
considerable trouble of calculating the Fine Structure Constant from 12,672
Feynman Diagrams when they already knew from measurement what the correct
answer is was to test the theory and see if it still worked at that
incredible degree of accuracy. And It did work. Why else would physicists
have such enormous confidence in Feynman's diagrams? How else can you tell
the difference between a good physical theory and a bad one?

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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is comparable and incomparable between casually disconnected universes?

[Bruce Kellett]

On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 1:36 PM John Clark  wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 7:49 PM Bruce Kellett 
> wrote:
>
> >>The following 2012 article in Physical Review letters describes a QED
>>> calculation involving 12,672 tenth order Feynman diagrams used to
>>> calculate both the magnetic moment of the electron and the inverse of the
>>> Fine Structure Constant and obtaining a value of 137.035999173 which is
>>> almost exactly the same as the experimentally derived value:
>>>
>>
>> >That is an experimentally derived value!
>>
>
> No,  the experimentally derived value is 137.035999139
>
> *>Your original claim was that the fine structure constant was
>> computable. *
>
>
> I said that was my intuition, I don't have a proof.
>
> > *it is a physical constant that must be measured.*
>
>
> I know, that's why I said the Fine Structure Constant was defined
> physically not mathematically,  and that's why any physical theory that is
> in conflict with that measured value for the FSC can not be a good theory.
> Feynman's QED is not in conflict with it, in fact it produced the closest
> agreement between experiment and theory in the entire history of science.
>
> > *But it is not computable from first principles,*
>
>
> That depends on what the first principle is, if its charged particles
> behave the way Feynman said they do then you can compute a value for the
> FSC that is very very close to the best measured one. Maybe when
> measurement becomes more precise a statistically significant discrepancy
> will show up between the experimental value and the theoretical value,
>

There is no theoretical value". All the values that we have are measured --
often in different ways, or from the results of different experiments to
measure the same things, such as g-2, so there can be a range of measured
results. The CODATA value is their best-fit value to the whole range of
different experimental measurements. But in the final analysis, the fine
structure constant is an arbitrary physical constant that must be measured
-- there is no "theoretical value".

Bruce

if so we'll have to fine something better than Feynman Diagrams because in
> science when experiment and theory fight experiment always wins.
>
>
>> *>You have to define what you mean by "computable". *
>
>
> The Fine Structure Constant is computable if and only if there exists a
> finite algorithm that can work on a finite amount of data and produce a
> number in a finite amount of time that is arbitrarily close to it.  I don't
> claim to have such a algorithm I'm just saying my hunch is it exists and
> Feynman gives us reason for optimism. But I could be wrong.
>

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is comparable and incomparable between casually disconnected universes?

[John Clark]

On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 7:49 PM Bruce Kellett  wrote:

>>The following 2012 article in Physical Review letters describes a QED
>> calculation involving 12,672 tenth order Feynman diagrams used to
>> calculate both the magnetic moment of the electron and the inverse of the
>> Fine Structure Constant and obtaining a value of 137.035999173 which is
>> almost exactly the same as the experimentally derived value:
>>
>
> >That is an experimentally derived value!
>

No,  the experimentally derived value is 137.035999139

*>Your original claim was that the fine structure constant was computable. *


I said that was my intuition, I don't have a proof.

> *it is a physical constant that must be measured.*


I know, that's why I said the Fine Structure Constant was defined
physically not mathematically,  and that's why any physical theory that is
in conflict with that measured value for the FSC can not be a good theory.
Feynman's QED is not in conflict with it, in fact it produced the closest
agreement between experiment and theory in the entire history of science.

> *But it is not computable from first principles,*


That depends on what the first principle is, if its charged particles
behave the way Feynman said they do then you can compute a value for the
FSC that is very very close to the best measured one. Maybe when
measurement becomes more precise a statistically significant discrepancy
will show up between the experimental value and the theoretical value, if
so we'll have to fine something better than Feynman Diagrams because in
science when experiment and theory fight experiment always wins.


> *>You have to define what you mean by "computable". *


The Fine Structure Constant is computable if and only if there exists a
finite algorithm that can work on a finite amount of data and produce a
number in a finite amount of time that is arbitrarily close to it.  I don't
claim to have such a algorithm I'm just saying my hunch is it exists and
Feynman gives us reason for optimism. But I could be wrong.

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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is comparable and incomparable between casually disconnected universes?

[Bruce Kellett]

On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 11:38 AM John Clark  wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 5:01 PM Bruce Kellett 
> wrote:
>
> *> Rubbish. The fine structure constant is not computable by Feynman
>> diagrams. What might be confusing you is that QED calculations of
>> physically measurable  things like the Lamb Shift and g-2 for the electron
>> depend on the value of the FSC.*
>>
>
> How is using Feynman diagrams to compute the Lamb Shift Shift (which
> depends on the Fine Structure Constant) different from using Feynman
> diagrams to compute the Fine Structure Constant?  After all physics
> didn't determine the Lamb Shift from the Fine Structure Constant, they
> determined the Fine Structure Constant by looking at the Lamb Shift, in
> fact the very very fine lines in the spectrum of Hydrogen is how the Fine
> Structure Constant got its name.
>
> The following 2012 article in Physical Review letters describes a QED
> calculation involving 12,672 tenth order Feynman diagrams used to
> calculate both the magnetic moment of the electron and the inverse of the
> Fine Structure Constant and obtaining a value of 137.035999173 which is
> almost exactly the same as the experimentally derived value:
>

That is an experimentally derived value!


> Improved Value of the Fine Structure Constant
> 
>
> John K Clark
>

Your original claim was that the fine structure constant was computable.
But it is not computable from first principles, it is a physical constant
that must be measured. The fact that computations might be involved in
getting the value from measurements does not mean that the FSC is itself
computable.

You have to define what you mean by "computable". The FSC is a measured
quantity, not computable in the way pi or e are computable from
mathematical formulae.

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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is comparable and incomparable between casually disconnected universes?

[John Clark]

On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 5:01 PM Bruce Kellett  wrote:

*> Rubbish. The fine structure constant is not computable by Feynman
> diagrams. What might be confusing you is that QED calculations of
> physically measurable  things like the Lamb Shift and g-2 for the electron
> depend on the value of the FSC.*
>

How is using Feynman diagrams to compute the Lamb Shift Shift (which
depends on the Fine Structure Constant) different from using Feynman
diagrams to compute the Fine Structure Constant?  After all physics didn't
determine the Lamb Shift from the Fine Structure Constant, they determined
the Fine Structure Constant by looking at the Lamb Shift, in fact the very
very fine lines in the spectrum of Hydrogen is how the Fine Structure
Constant got its name.

The following 2012 article in Physical Review letters describes a QED
calculation involving 12,672 tenth order Feynman diagrams used to calculate
both the magnetic moment of the electron and the inverse of the Fine
Structure Constant and obtaining a value of 137.035999173 which is almost
exactly the same as the experimentally derived value:

Improved Value of the Fine Structure Constant


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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is comparable and incomparable between casually disconnected universes?

[Philip Thrift]

On Wednesday, January 9, 2019 at 4:01:46 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 7:53 AM John Clark  > wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 1:58 PM Philip Thrift > > wrote:
>>
>> >> Is the Fine Structure Constant a rational number? Is it a algebraic 
 number? Is it a transcendental number? Nobody knows.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *> Is it computable at least?*
>>
>>
>> Because the Fine Structure Constant has a physical and not a 
>> mathematical definition my intuition tells me it must be computable; and 
>> indeed we've already computed a very good approximation of it and there is 
>> no reason to think we couldn't do even better if we had faster computers 
>> that could sum up more of those Feynman diagrams.  
>>
>
> Rubbish. The fine structure constant is not computable by Feynman 
> diagrams. What might be confusing you is that QED calculations of 
> physically measurable  things like the Lamb Shift and g-2 for the electron 
> depend on the value of the FSC. Comparing the calculations with experiment 
> gives an accurate value for the FSC. the fine structure constant itself is 
> an arbitrary constant of nature, and not directly callable.
>
> Bruce
>




On computability of "constants" of a theory, a bit unsettled:

*Computability and Physical Theories*
Robert Geroch, James B. Hartle
https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.09237

*The familiar theories of physics have the feature that the application of 
the theory to make predictions in specific circumstances can be done by 
means of an algorithm. We propose a more precise formulation of this 
feature --- one based on the issue of whether or not the physically 
measurable numbers predicted by the theory are computable in the 
mathematical sense. Applying this formulation to one approach to a quantum 
theory of gravity, there are found indications that there may exist no such 
algorithms in this case. Finally, we discuss the issue of whether the 
existence of an algorithm to implement a theory should be adopted as a 
criterion for acceptable physical theories.*

("The fine structure constant is measurable.")


- pt

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is comparable and incomparable between casually disconnected universes?

[Bruce Kellett]

On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 7:53 AM John Clark  wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 1:58 PM Philip Thrift 
> wrote:
>
> >> Is the Fine Structure Constant a rational number? Is it a algebraic
>>> number? Is it a transcendental number? Nobody knows.
>>
>>
>>
>> *> Is it computable at least?*
>
>
> Because the Fine Structure Constant has a physical and not a mathematical
> definition my intuition tells me it must be computable; and indeed we've
> already computed a very good approximation of it and there is no reason to
> think we couldn't do even better if we had faster computers that could sum
> up more of those Feynman diagrams.
>

Rubbish. The fine structure constant is not computable by Feynman diagrams.
What might be confusing you is that QED calculations of physically
measurable  things like the Lamb Shift and g-2 for the electron depend on
the value of the FSC. Comparing the calculations with experiment gives an
accurate value for the FSC. the fine structure constant itself is an
arbitrary constant of nature, and not directly callable.

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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is comparable and incomparable between casually disconnected universes?

[John Clark]

On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 1:58 PM Philip Thrift  wrote:

>> Is the Fine Structure Constant a rational number? Is it a algebraic
>> number? Is it a transcendental number? Nobody knows.
>
>
>
> *> Is it computable at least?*


Because the Fine Structure Constant has a physical and not a mathematical
definition my intuition tells me it must be computable; and indeed we've
already computed a very good approximation of it and there is no reason to
think we couldn't do even better if we had faster computers that could sum
up more of those Feynman diagrams.

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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is comparable and incomparable between casually disconnected universes?

[Philip Thrift]

On Wednesday, January 9, 2019 at 12:29:52 PM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>
> I agree with Lawrence Crowell it would be wise to stick with dimensionless 
> units. They're not many non integer constants in physics without a 
> obvious purely mathematical definition such as PI and e have but the Fine 
> Structure Constant is one of that rare breed of pure dimensionless numbers 
> that mathematicians have never found anything special about but 
> physicists have. 
>
> If you place 2 electrons a distance d apart they will repel each other 
> because they will both have a negative charge; call the energy needed to 
> overcome that repulsion Er and let's call the energy in one photon of 
> light with a wavelength of  (2PI)*d  Er.  Er/Ep is the Fine Structure 
> Constant (FSC), the ratio of 2 energies is obviously a pure number and is 
> very close to 1/137 but not exactly so, the reciprocal of the FSC obtained 
> experimentally is  137.035999139 plus or minus 31 in the last two digits. 
> It can also be calculated theoretically using Feynman Diagrams and the 
> result is 137.035999173  plus or minus 35 in the last two digits. Another 
> physical interpretation is the ratio of the velocity of a electron in the 
> innermost orbit of the Bohr model of the Hydrogen atom to the velocity of 
> light in a vacuum.  
>
> Is the Fine Structure Constant a rational number? Is it a algebraic 
> number? Is it a transcendental number? Nobody knows.
>
>  John K Clark
>
>

Is it computable at least?

- pt 

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is comparable and incomparable between casually disconnected universes?

[John Clark]

I agree with Lawrence Crowell it would be wise to stick with dimensionless
units. They're not many non integer constants in physics without a obvious
purely mathematical definition such as PI and e have but the Fine Structure
Constant is one of that rare breed of pure dimensionless numbers that
mathematicians
have never found anything special about but physicists have.

If you place 2 electrons a distance d apart they will repel each other
because they will both have a negative charge; call the energy needed to
overcome that repulsion Er and let's call the energy in one photon of light
with a wavelength of  (2PI)*d  Er.  Er/Ep is the Fine Structure Constant
(FSC), the ratio of 2 energies is obviously a pure number and is very close
to 1/137 but not exactly so, the reciprocal of the FSC obtained
experimentally is  137.035999139 plus or minus 31 in the last two digits.
It can also be calculated theoretically using Feynman Diagrams and the
result is 137.035999173  plus or minus 35 in the last two digits. Another
physical interpretation is the ratio of the velocity of a electron in the
innermost orbit of the Bohr model of the Hydrogen atom to the velocity of
light in a vacuum.

Is the Fine Structure Constant a rational number? Is it a algebraic number?
Is it a transcendental number? Nobody knows.

 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is comparable and incomparable between casually disconnected universes?

[Lawrence Crowell]

I would stay with dimensionless units, which can include qubits etc. The 
Planck mass is m_p = sqrt{ħc/G} and this can be compared to the mass of 
some elementary particle M so that

(M/m_p)^2 = GM^2/ħc,

which looks suspiciously similar to the fine structure constant α_e 
= e^2/(4πεħc) ~ 1/137 and we can call the above ratio α_g. My temptation 
is to put the mass of the Higgs boson in for the mass M = 125GeV and the 
Planck mass is 1.22×10^{19} GeV and we then get α_g = 1.02×10^{-36}. 

I chose the Higgs particle mass because I think the Higgs field is a scalar 
field connected to gravity. Also the masses of all fundamental particles we 
know, not complex bound systems like hadrons with an induced mass gap, is 
given by the Higgs field. The masses of other particles is related to this 
with various Yukawa coupling terms. The Higgs field, along with inflaton 
and related scalar fields (dilatons axions etc) are potentially singlet 
entanglement states of a gauge-like field that in a triplet entanglement is 
equivalent to a graviton. 

LC

On Sunday, January 6, 2019 at 10:10:36 AM UTC-6, Jason wrote:
>
> I am trying to make a list of what properties are comparable between two 
> universes and which properties are incomparable. I think this has 
> applications regarding what knowledge can be extracted via simulation of 
> (from one's POV) other abstract realities and worlds (which may be actual 
> from someone else's point of view).
>
> So far this is what I have, but would appreciate other's 
> insights/corrections:
>
> Incomparable properties:
>
>- Sizes (e.g., how big is something in another universe, is a galaxy 
>in that universe bigger or smaller than a planet in our universe?)
>- Distances (what possible meaning could a meter have in that other 
>universe?)
>- Strength of forces (we could say how particles are affected by these 
>forces in their universe, but not how they would translate if applied to 
>our own)
>- Time (how long it takes for anything to happen in that other 
>universe)
>- Age (when it began, how long the universe has existed)
>- Speeds (given neither distance nor time is comparable)
>- Present (what the present time is in the other universe)
>- Position (it has no relative position, or location relative to our 
>own universe)
>
> Comparable properties:
>
>- Information content (how many bits are needed to describe state)
>- Computational complexity (how many operations need to be computed to 
>advance)
>- Dimensionality of its objects (e.g. spacetime, strings, etc.)
>- Entropy
>- Plankian/discrete units (e.g. in terms of smallest physically 
>meaningful units)
>
> Unsure:
>
>- Mass? (given forces are not comparable, but also related to energy)
>- Energy (given its relation to both entropy and mass)
>
>
> So if we simulate some other universe, we can describe and relate it to 
> our own physical universe in similar terms of information content, 
> computational complexity, dimensionality, discrete units, etc. but many 
> things seem to have no meaning at all: time, distance, size.
>
> Do these reflect limits of simulation, or are they limits that apply to 
> our own universe itself?  e.g., if everything in this universe was made 
> 100X larger, and all forces similarly scaled, would we notice?  Perhaps 
> incomparable properties are things that are variant (and illusory) in an 
> objective sense.
>
> A final question, are they truly "causally disconnected" given we can 
> simulate them? E.g. if we can use computers to temporarily compel matter in 
> our universe to behave like things in that simulated universe, then in some 
> sense isn't that a causal interaction?  What things can travel through such 
> portals of simulation beyond information?
>
> Jason
>
> P.S.
>
> It is interesting that when we consider mathematical/platonic objects, we 
> likewise face the same limits in terms of being able to understand them.  
> e.g., we can't point to the Mandlebrot set, nor compare its size in terms 
> of physical units.
>

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is comparable and incomparable between casually disconnected universes?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 6 Jan 2019, at 17:10, Jason Resch  wrote:
> 
> I am trying to make a list of what properties are comparable between two 
> universes and which properties are incomparable.

What do you mean by “universes”? If it means “physical universe”, and if 
Mechanism is postulated, I am not sure it makes sense to compare two physical 
universe, although it can make sense to talk about different digital 
approximation of a universe. 




> I think this has applications regarding what knowledge can be extracted via 
> simulation of (from one's POV) other abstract realities and worlds (which may 
> be actual from someone else's point of view).
> 
> So far this is what I have, but would appreciate other's insights/corrections:
> 
> Incomparable properties:
> Sizes (e.g., how big is something in another universe, is a galaxy in that 
> universe bigger or smaller than a planet in our universe?)
> Distances (what possible meaning could a meter have in that other universe?)
> Strength of forces (we could say how particles are affected by these forces 
> in their universe, but not how they would translate if applied to our own)
> Time (how long it takes for anything to happen in that other universe)
> Age (when it began, how long the universe has existed)
> Speeds (given neither distance nor time is comparable)
> Present (what the present time is in the other universe)
> Position (it has no relative position, or location relative to our own 
> universe)
> Comparable properties:
> Information content (how many bits are needed to describe state)
> Computational complexity (how many operations need to be computed to advance)
> Dimensionality of its objects (e.g. spacetime, strings, etc.)
> Entropy
> Plankian/discrete units (e.g. in terms of smallest physically meaningful 
> units)
> Unsure:
> Mass? (given forces are not comparable, but also related to energy)
> Energy (given its relation to both entropy and mass)
> 
> So if we simulate some other universe, we can describe and relate it to our 
> own physical universe in similar terms of information content, computational 
> complexity, dimensionality, discrete units, etc. but many things seem to have 
> no meaning at all: time, distance, size.
> 
> Do these reflect limits of simulation, or are they limits that apply to our 
> own universe itself? 

All universal machine in arithmetic have the same universe, or set of physical 
laws, as they are truly machine-invariant. Only the geographies and histories 
can differ, so your question becomes is mass, energy, entropy, dimension, age, 
etc.. geographic-historical or physical?




> e.g., if everything in this universe was made 100X larger, and all forces 
> similarly scaled, would we notice?  Perhaps incomparable properties are 
> things that are variant (and illusory) in an objective sense.

If we don’t notice, it is the same, except for the weigh, which depends on 
which representation emulate which experiences in arithmetic.




> 
> A final question, are they truly "causally disconnected" given we can 
> simulate them? E.g. if we can use computers to temporarily compel matter in 
> our universe to behave like things in that simulated universe, then in some 
> sense isn't that a causal interaction?  What things can travel through such 
> portals of simulation beyond information?

I am not sure this makes sense. There is no “universe” of that kind, I would 
say (when we postulate mechanism). There is only interfering (statistically) 
histories/computations-seen-from-inside (seen by the Löbian machine supported 
by those computations). 

Bruno 







> 
> Jason
> 
> P.S.
> 
> It is interesting that when we consider mathematical/platonic objects, we 
> likewise face the same limits in terms of being able to understand them.  
> e.g., we can't point to the Mandlebrot set, nor compare its size in terms of 
> physical units.
> 
> -- 
> 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is comparable and incomparable between casually disconnected universes?

[Philip Thrift]

On Sunday, January 6, 2019 at 10:10:36 AM UTC-6, Jason wrote:
>
> I am trying to make a list of what properties are comparable between two 
> universes and which properties are incomparable. I think this has 
> applications regarding what knowledge can be extracted via simulation of 
> (from one's POV) other abstract realities and worlds (which may be actual 
> from someone else's point of view).
>
> So far this is what I have, but would appreciate other's 
> insights/corrections:
>
> Incomparable properties:
>
>- Sizes (e.g., how big is something in another universe, is a galaxy 
>in that universe bigger or smaller than a planet in our universe?)
>- Distances (what possible meaning could a meter have in that other 
>universe?)
>- Strength of forces (we could say how particles are affected by these 
>forces in their universe, but not how they would translate if applied to 
>our own)
>- Time (how long it takes for anything to happen in that other 
>universe)
>- Age (when it began, how long the universe has existed)
>- Speeds (given neither distance nor time is comparable)
>- Present (what the present time is in the other universe)
>- Position (it has no relative position, or location relative to our 
>own universe)
>
> Comparable properties:
>
>- Information content (how many bits are needed to describe state)
>- Computational complexity (how many operations need to be computed to 
>advance)
>- Dimensionality of its objects (e.g. spacetime, strings, etc.)
>- Entropy
>- Plankian/discrete units (e.g. in terms of smallest physically 
>meaningful units)
>
> Unsure:
>
>- Mass? (given forces are not comparable, but also related to energy)
>- Energy (given its relation to both entropy and mass)
>
>
> So if we simulate some other universe, we can describe and relate it to 
> our own physical universe in similar terms of information content, 
> computational complexity, dimensionality, discrete units, etc. but many 
> things seem to have no meaning at all: time, distance, size.
>
> Do these reflect limits of simulation, or are they limits that apply to 
> our own universe itself?  e.g., if everything in this universe was made 
> 100X larger, and all forces similarly scaled, would we notice?  Perhaps 
> incomparable properties are things that are variant (and illusory) in an 
> objective sense.
>
> A final question, are they truly "causally disconnected" given we can 
> simulate them? E.g. if we can use computers to temporarily compel matter in 
> our universe to behave like things in that simulated universe, then in some 
> sense isn't that a causal interaction?  What things can travel through such 
> portals of simulation beyond information?
>
> Jason
>
> P.S.
>
> It is interesting that when we consider mathematical/platonic objects, we 
> likewise face the same limits in terms of being able to understand them.  
> e.g., we can't point to the Mandlebrot set, nor compare its size in terms 
> of physical units.
>




This is the idea of the *matter compiler,* first in SF, and now in NSF 
research projects.


- pt 

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is comparable and incomparable between casually disconnected universes?

[Russell Standish]

On Sun, Jan 06, 2019 at 10:10:23AM -0600, Jason Resch wrote:
> I am trying to make a list of what properties are comparable between two
> universes and which properties are incomparable. I think this has applications
> regarding what knowledge can be extracted via simulation of (from one's POV)
> other abstract realities and worlds (which may be actual from someone else's
> point of view).
> 
> So far this is what I have, but would appreciate other's insights/corrections:
> 
> Incomparable properties:
> 
>   • Sizes (e.g., how big is something in another universe, is a galaxy in that
> universe bigger or smaller than a planet in our universe?)
>   • Distances (what possible meaning could a meter have in that other
> universe?)
>   • Strength of forces (we could say how particles are affected by these 
> forces
> in their universe, but not how they would translate if applied to our own)
>   • Time (how long it takes for anything to happen in that other universe)
>   • Age (when it began, how long the universe has existed)
>   • Speeds (given neither distance nor time is comparable)
>   • Present (what the present time is in the other universe)
>   • Position (it has no relative position, or location relative to our own
> universe)
> 
> Comparable properties:
> 
>   • Information content (how many bits are needed to describe state)
>   • Computational complexity (how many operations need to be computed to
> advance)
>   • Dimensionality of its objects (e.g. spacetime, strings, etc.)
>   • Entropy
>   • Plankian/discrete units (e.g. in terms of smallest physically meaningful
> units)
> 
> Unsure:
> 
>   • Mass? (given forces are not comparable, but also related to energy)
>   • Energy (given its relation to both entropy and mass)
> 

I would stick with dimensionless constants - eg alpha may vary between
universes. Information is a good example of a dimensionless value too.


-- 


Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Senior Research Fellowhpco...@hpcoders.com.au
Economics, Kingston University 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

What is comparable and incomparable between casually disconnected universes?

[Jason Resch]

I am trying to make a list of what properties are comparable between two
universes and which properties are incomparable. I think this has
applications regarding what knowledge can be extracted via simulation of
(from one's POV) other abstract realities and worlds (which may be actual
from someone else's point of view).

So far this is what I have, but would appreciate other's
insights/corrections:

Incomparable properties:

   - Sizes (e.g., how big is something in another universe, is a galaxy in
   that universe bigger or smaller than a planet in our universe?)
   - Distances (what possible meaning could a meter have in that other
   universe?)
   - Strength of forces (we could say how particles are affected by these
   forces in their universe, but not how they would translate if applied to
   our own)
   - Time (how long it takes for anything to happen in that other universe)
   - Age (when it began, how long the universe has existed)
   - Speeds (given neither distance nor time is comparable)
   - Present (what the present time is in the other universe)
   - Position (it has no relative position, or location relative to our own
   universe)

Comparable properties:

   - Information content (how many bits are needed to describe state)
   - Computational complexity (how many operations need to be computed to
   advance)
   - Dimensionality of its objects (e.g. spacetime, strings, etc.)
   - Entropy
   - Plankian/discrete units (e.g. in terms of smallest physically
   meaningful units)

Unsure:

   - Mass? (given forces are not comparable, but also related to energy)
   - Energy (given its relation to both entropy and mass)


So if we simulate some other universe, we can describe and relate it to our
own physical universe in similar terms of information content,
computational complexity, dimensionality, discrete units, etc. but many
things seem to have no meaning at all: time, distance, size.

Do these reflect limits of simulation, or are they limits that apply to our
own universe itself?  e.g., if everything in this universe was made 100X
larger, and all forces similarly scaled, would we notice?  Perhaps
incomparable properties are things that are variant (and illusory) in an
objective sense.

A final question, are they truly "causally disconnected" given we can
simulate them? E.g. if we can use computers to temporarily compel matter in
our universe to behave like things in that simulated universe, then in some
sense isn't that a causal interaction?  What things can travel through such
portals of simulation beyond information?

Jason

P.S.

It is interesting that when we consider mathematical/platonic objects, we
likewise face the same limits in terms of being able to understand them.
e.g., we can't point to the Mandlebrot set, nor compare its size in terms
of physical units.

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.