Alas, Poor Tipler
Robert L. Oldershaw
Alas, poor Tipler went in search of the fount of knowledge.
Instead, he ended up with a lukewarm paper cup of gin and Koolaid.
Robert L. Oldershaw
Alas, poor Tipler went in search of the fount of knowledge.
Instead, he only found a lukewarm paper cup of gin and Koolaid.
Hayek
Those silly SR-ians. Rather have a multiverse than FTL.
They have to deny FTL or else they admit they are dumber
than all the guys they called dumb for not understanding
mutual time dilation.
Uwe Hayek.
--
We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate
inversion : the stage where the government is free to do
anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by
permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of
human history. -- Ayn Rand
I predict future happiness for Americans if they can
prevent the government from wasting the labors of the
people under the pretense of taking care of them. --
Thomas Jefferson.
Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of
ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue
is the equal sharing of misery. -- Winston Churchill.
eric gisse
> Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
>> Alas, poor Tipler went in search of the fount of knowledge.
>>
>> Instead, he ended up with a lukewarm paper cup of gin and Koolaid.
>>
>> http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1008/1008.2764v1.pdf
>>
>> RLO
>> www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
>
> Those silly SR-ians.
Only cranks say 'SR-ians' or anything of that nature.
> Rather have a multiverse than FTL.
>
> They have to deny FTL or else they admit they are dumber
> than all the guys they called dumb for not understanding
> mutual time dilation.
>
> Uwe Hayek.
>
Demonstrate FTL and you'll get converts.
Unless you are basing your opinion on what you think scientists 'want', in
which case you are an idiot.
George Hammond
Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> wrote:
>
>Alas, poor Tipler went in search of the fount of knowledge.
>
>Instead, he ended up with a lukewarm paper cup of gin and Koolaid.
>
>http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1008/1008.2764v1.pdf
>
>RLO
>
>
[Hammond]
This paper is certainly remarkable for both its brevity
and mathematical simplicity; a virtual "proof of the
Multiverse" in two pages! Nor is it unbelieveable that
Tipler should be the one to stumble on such a remarkable
observation since he practically achieved legendary status
in mathematical physics at an early age for discovering the
Tipler Cylinder.
However, I am interested in Frank Tipler as a physicist
because he is probably the most able scientist in modern
times to show a sophisticated concern for the physics of God
by becoming a bestselling author on the subject; another
sure sign of a historic intellect.
In the second paragraph Tipler says:
"The Aspect experiment is really a cosmological experiment
like the Penzias and Wilson experiment."
and he follows that up in the next to last paragraph with:
"...inflation theory explains the observed fact that the
CMBR temperature is observed to be the same on opposite
sides of the sky: the two sides were once in causal
contact."
I don't quite see the analogy Tipler is trying to
draw.... is he drawing an analogy between the faster than
light expansion of the universe during Inflation and the
faster than light comunication that apparently takes place
in quantum non-locality? Perhaps someone can make some
enlightening remarks about his analogy.
========================================
GEORGE HAMMOND'S PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
Primary site
http://webspace.webring.com/people/eg/george_hammond
Mirror site
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
HAMMOND FOLK SONG by Casey Bennetto
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
=======================================
George Hammond
[Hammond]
P.S.: There is apparently a transcription error in the
5th line below equation (3) in Tipler's paper:
"However, notice in (3) that electron 2 has its spin down
state correlated uniquely with the world in which electron 1
has spin up, and its spin [down] state correlated uniquely
with the world in which electron 1 has spin down.
The word [down] which I have put in brackets in the above
sentence is an error and should actually read [up]. If
anyone confirms this I'll send Frank an email and he can
correct it.
bruc...@yahoo.com
wrote:
How can locality be preserved when splitting the universe is required
for quantum entanglement measurements to remain correlated? Splitting
universe doesn't seem like a local event to me. If Hammond thinks it's
profound it must be nonsense.
Robert L. Oldershaw
>
> How can locality be preserved when splitting the universe is required
> for quantum entanglement measurements to remain correlated? Splitting
> universe doesn't seem like a local event to me. If Hammond thinks it's
> profound it must be nonsense.
Unfortunately, locality is rejected in most quantum models in favor of
entanglement and instantaneous "action-at-a-distance". The "many
worlds" models try to explain quantum weirdness with quantum insanity,
in my opinion.
Someday, some bright person who has spent a lot of time observing and
thinking about nature, and relatively little time randomly wandering
in the labyrinths of abstract mathematical physics, will figure out
how to model atomic scale physics in a way that preserves locality,
strict causality and the determinism of nonlinear dynamical systems.
David Bohm made a good try, but only could retain 2 of the 3
desiderata, i.e., he could not preserve locality.
Someone will eventually offer a rational model of atomic physics that
retains all that is good about QM and yet satisfies AE's criteria for
a complete rational theory. It will be less about what we can
observe, and more about how nature actually works.
Don't hold your breath. It will probably require an unorthodox way of
thinking about nature, and a willingness to give up any untested
assumption. Since the current attitude prevalent in theoretical
physics is to regard the real world of nature as unreliable and
imperfect when compared to Platonic models, and to treat observational
evidence as somewhat "anecdotal", and to regard making definitive
predictions as risky and/or unnecessary, we may be lost in the cosmos
without a reliable compass for quite a long time. But science will
get towed back out of the ditch of postmodern pseudoscience someday.
RLO
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw