Difference between MWI and SuperDeterminism

[Alan Grayson]

One is a cult. AG

[Alan Grayson]

On Thursday, December 26, 2024 at 11:39:48 PM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote:

One is a cult. AG

And we know it's a cult because particular powerful criticisms are totally ignored, presumably to defend the faith. I notice that common house flies, like ants, move in constant zig-zac paths. Is it not ridiculous to expect new ENTIRE universes are created with each zig and each zac? And what happens when motorists reach a T-intersection? AG

[Russell Standish]

I hate to break it to you, but what is ridiculous to you is not necessarily ridiculous to someone else.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule


--

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders hpc...@hpcoders.com.au
http://www.hpcoders.com.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Alan Grayson]

On Friday, December 27, 2024 at 3:45:03 PM UTC-7 Russell Standish wrote:

On Fri, Dec 27, 2024 at 02:05:49PM -0800, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
> On Thursday, December 26, 2024 at 11:39:48 PM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote:
>
> One is a cult. AG
>
>
> And we know it's a cult because particular powerful criticisms are totally
> ignored, presumably to defend the faith. I notice that common house flies, like

> ants, move in constant zig-zag paths. Is it not ridiculous to expect new ENTIRE
> universes are created with each zig and each zag? And what happens when

> motorists reach a T-intersection? AG

I hate to break it to you, but what is ridiculous to you is not necessarily ridiculous to someone else.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule

That's why Trump is POTUS (elected). It's a spreading disease. Do you like his cabinet picks? AG

[Alan Grayson]

From your pov, does the MWI imply new universes are created at every zig or zag of an ant or a common house fly, or a motorist at a T -intersection? Yes or No? AG 

[Russell Standish]

On Fri, Dec 27, 2024 at 06:14:52PM -0800, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
> From your pov, does the MWI imply new universes are created at every zig or zag
> of an ant or a common house fly, or a motorist at a T -intersection? Yes or No?
> AG 
>

Yes. Or differentiates. Its the same thing, actually. To those who see
a distinction, take your pick.

[Brent Meeker]

Is a whole universe created instantly or just in the forward light cone
of the ant?...or of each ant.

Brent

[Russell Standish]

On Fri, Dec 27, 2024 at 10:27:20PM -0800, Brent Meeker wrote:
> Is a whole universe created instantly or just in the forward light cone of
> the ant?...or of each ant.
>

It's in the mind of an observer of the ant. So forward light cones
don't really come into it, AFAICT. It is modelled as instantaneous, as
in observer moments, but it could have finite duration, I suppose.

[Alan Grayson]

On Friday, December 27, 2024 at 11:07:34 PM UTC-7 Russell Standish wrote:

On Fri, Dec 27, 2024 at 06:14:52PM -0800, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
> From your pov, does the MWI imply new universes are created at every zig or zag
> of an ant or a common house fly, or a motorist at a T -intersection? Yes or No?
> AG 
>

Yes. Or differentiates. Its the same thing, actually. To those who see
a distinction, take your pick.

But since you have no clue what an entire universe actually IS, don't you think you're

speculating way beyond your pay grade? AG 

[Russell Standish]

No.

[Alan Grayson]

On Saturday, December 28, 2024 at 12:10:14 AM UTC-7 Russell Standish wrote:

On Fri, Dec 27, 2024 at 10:56:06PM -0800, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
> On Friday, December 27, 2024 at 11:07:34 PM UTC-7 Russell Standish wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 27, 2024 at 06:14:52PM -0800, Alan Grayson wrote:
> >
> > From your pov, does the MWI imply new universes are created at every zig
> or zag
> > of an ant or a common house fly, or a motorist at a T -intersection? Yes
> or No?
> > AG 
> >
>
> Yes. Or differentiates. Its the same thing, actually. To those who see
> a distinction, take your pick.
>
>
> But since you have no clue what an entire universe actually IS, don't you think
> you're
> speculating way beyond your pay grade? AG 

No.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders hpc...@hpcoders.com.au
http://www.hpcoders.com.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Maybe those ants and flying insects have more consciousness than you are willing

to admit, so you don't need a human observing them to create new universes.

Equally important is the fact that your universes don't interact so you don't have

a verifiable scientific theory. Does any of this matter to you? Of course not, since

this is another sign of being a cultist. AG 

[Alan Grayson]

All you have are smoke and mirrors. On second thought, maybe just smoke. AG 

[Quentin Anciaux]

Says the guy who found a fatal flow in SR and cannot comprehend simultaneity in spacelike separated scenario... the joke is very good.

--
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-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0fefc7fc-9cb7-4995-9966-3d95f31e9b25n%40googlegroups.com.

[John Clark]

On Sat, Dec 28, 2024 at 4:17 AM Quentin Anciaux <allc...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> All you have are smoke and mirrors. On second thought, maybe just smoke. AG 

> Says the guy who found a fatal flow in SR and cannot comprehend simultaneity in spacelike separated scenario... the joke is very good.

Alan's anti-special relativity posts are the result of ignorance and a belief that he's smarter than everybody else so nobody can teach him anything, but I have a hunch his anti-many world posts have a different source; he demonstrates a hysterical hostility towards anyone even suggesting that maybe the many worlds idea is true because he sometimes suspects that it might be and is trying to convince himself that it isn't. Hence the wall-to-wall insults. 

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

fi6 

[Alan Grayson]

If you had brains, you'd be dangerous. Do you know how the SR problem is stated, I mean really know? It's like this; you have a car and a garage, with the car longer than the garage. Can you use SR to make the car fit in the garage? Well, of course. All that's required is to speed the car to a velocity which, from the frame of the car, contracts the garage sufficiently to get it to fit. Problem solved, or so it appears. The various self appointed experts and gurus have an allegedly better solution, but ostensibly somewhat more complicated. Instead of considering length contraction of the garage, they apply the disagreement about simultaneity to show the car won't fit from the pov of the car frame, but does fit from the pov of the garage frame. So, as you should be able to comprehend, both methods give the SAME result! So where is the paradox? Truly, it resides in the more-or-less unstated assumption, that there exists an OBJECTIVE reality which precludes this result; that the car fits in the garage frame, but doesn't fit in the car frame. But AFAICT, nowhere is there a proof about the status of this alleged objective reality, whether it exists or not, although SR does allow different frames to make different measurements. Is this paradox a departure from this general result? I don't know, but I'm working on this issue. I recall that Brent denied its existence, but since I do not understand his plots, I remain unsure of his claim. AG

Now a word about the MWI. If you've been paying attention, it's patently obvious that the theory is absolutely non-testable, for the simple

reason that it assumes the Many Worlds do NOT interact. String theory has an ostensible similar problem, in that strings, if they exists, are too small to be detected. However, string theory does NOT in principle DENY that strings could be detectable, given really HUGE advances in technology. OTOH, the MWI does in fact have the no-detection-possible claim implicit as one of its principles, insofar as it claims its Many Worlds are non-interacting. AG

[Alan Grayson]

I have no inherent objection to the existence of many worlds. It's plausible in the context of continuous inflation, but surely not in the context of the MWI. How about dealing with my criticisms of the MWI, instead of towing the line expected from a cultist? As for SR, I refer you to my last post on this thread. AG  

f

[Russell Standish]

I spent considerable time in 2006 developing the arguments and
expressing it in a cogent form in my book "Theory of Nothing". I don't
feel like recapitulating the arguments here in these emails, in a less
cogent form, when you can just go read the book. I am happy to engage
with valid criticisms of anything I said in that book - indeed, if you
search the everything archive, you may find your specific concern
already addressed. What I don't want to do is address your strawman
arguments, where you deliberately misstate your opponents' positions.

Yes, it does matter to me whether a theory is falsifiable or
not. Nobody is claiming many worlds is a scientific theory in the
Popperian sense. Well maybe Deutsch does, arguing that quantum
supremacy is sufficient rule out the alternative of a single universe,
but I'm not really convinced by that :P. The trouble is that the
alternative of a single objective reality that you argue for is not a
falsifiable scientific theory either. The real problem is that Occams
razor actually prefers the everything theory over a single objective
reality.


--

[Brent Meeker]

On 12/28/2024 3:45 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:

Do you know how the SR problem is stated, I mean really know? It's like this; you have a car and a garage, with the car longer than the garage. Can you use SR to make the car fit in the garage? Well, of course. All that's required is to speed the car to a velocity which, from the frame of the car, contracts the garage sufficiently to get it to fit.

That's not even a correct statement of the paradox.  You make the car fit the the garage in the garage frame by speeding the car up so the car is Lorentz contracted (I really liked the original tank trap version better).

Problem solved, or so it appears. The various self appointed experts and gurus have an allegedly better solution, but ostensibly somewhat more complicated. Instead of considering length contraction of the garage, they apply the disagreement about simultaneity to show the car won't fit from the pov of the car frame, but does fit from the pov of the garage frame. So, as you should be able to comprehend, both methods give the SAME result! So where is the paradox?

Truly, it resides in the more-or-less unstated assumption, that there exists an OBJECTIVE reality which precludes this result; that the car fits in the garage frame, but doesn't fit in the car frame.

It's not only unstated, it's un-assumed and non-existent. It's no one's version of the paradox...much less "objective reality".  Rather it is Grayson's imagined reality.

Brent

[Alan Grayson]

On Saturday, December 28, 2024 at 4:05:26 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:

On 12/28/2024 3:45 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:

Do you know how the SR problem is stated, I mean really know? It's like this; you have a car and a garage, with the car longer than the garage. Can you use SR to make the car fit in the garage? Well, of course. All that's required is to speed the car to a velocity which, from the frame of the car, contracts the garage sufficiently to get it to fit.

That's not even a correct statement of the paradox.  You make the car fit the the garage in the garage frame by speeding the car up so the car is Lorentz contracted (I really liked the original tank trap version better).

Problem solved, or so it appears. The various self appointed experts and gurus have an allegedly better solution, but ostensibly somewhat more complicated. Instead of considering length contraction of the garage, they apply the disagreement about simultaneity to show the car won't fit from the pov of the car frame, but does fit from the pov of the garage frame. So, as you should be able to comprehend, both methods give the SAME result! So where is the paradox?

Truly, it resides in the more-or-less unstated assumption, that there exists an OBJECTIVE reality which precludes this result; that the car fits in the garage frame, but doesn't fit in the car frame.

It's not only unstated, it's un-assumed and non-existent. It's no one's version of the paradox...much less "objective reality".  Rather it is Grayson's imagined reality.

Brent

How about revealing YOUR version of the paradox? Cat got your tongue? AG 

[Brent Meeker]

On 12/28/2024 5:00 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Saturday, December 28, 2024 at 4:05:26 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:

On 12/28/2024 3:45 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:

Do you know how the SR problem is stated, I mean really know? It's like this; you have a car and a garage, with the car longer than the garage. Can you use SR to make the car fit in the garage? Well, of course. All that's required is to speed the car to a velocity which, from the frame of the car, contracts the garage sufficiently to get it to fit.

That's not even a correct statement of the paradox.  You make the car fit the the garage in the garage frame by speeding the car up so the car is Lorentz contracted (I really liked the original tank trap version better).

Problem solved, or so it appears. The various self appointed experts and gurus have an allegedly better solution, but ostensibly somewhat more complicated. Instead of considering length contraction of the garage, they apply the disagreement about simultaneity to show the car won't fit from the pov of the car frame, but does fit from the pov of the garage frame. So, as you should be able to comprehend, both methods give the SAME result! So where is the paradox?

Truly, it resides in the more-or-less unstated assumption, that there exists an OBJECTIVE reality which precludes this result; that the car fits in the garage frame, but doesn't fit in the car frame.

It's not only unstated, it's un-assumed and non-existent. It's no one's version of the paradox...much less "objective reality".  Rather it is Grayson's imagined reality.

Brent

How about revealing YOUR version of the paradox? Cat got your tongue? AG

I've both explained it and diagrammed it.  As Oliver Heaviside said, "I've given you an argument.  I'm not obliged to give you an understanding."

Brent

[Alan Grayson]

 Not surprising. Another BS artist. How about some simple text message explaining YOUR version of the paradox? AG

[Alan Grayson]

On Saturday, December 28, 2024 at 4:05:26 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:

On 12/28/2024 3:45 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:

Do you know how the SR problem is stated, I mean really know? It's like this; you have a car and a garage, with the car longer than the garage. Can you use SR to make the car fit in the garage? Well, of course. All that's required is to speed the car to a velocity which, from the frame of the car, contracts the garage sufficiently to get it to fit.

That's not even a correct statement of the paradox.  You make the car fit the the garage in the garage frame by speeding the car up so the car is Lorentz contracted (I really liked the original tank trap version better).

Problem solved, or so it appears. The various self appointed experts and gurus have an allegedly better solution, but ostensibly somewhat more complicated. Instead of considering length contraction of the garage, they apply the disagreement about simultaneity to show the car won't fit from the pov of the car frame, but does fit from the pov of the garage frame. So, as you should be able to comprehend, both methods give the SAME result! So where is the paradox?

Truly, it resides in the more-or-less unstated assumption, that there exists an OBJECTIVE reality which precludes this result; that the car fits in the garage frame, but doesn't fit in the car frame.

It's not only unstated, it's un-assumed and non-existent. It's no one's version of the paradox...much less "objective reality".  Rather it is Grayson's imagined reality.

Brent

According to Google, there's a paradox if the frames disagree about whether the car fits in the garage, implying there is an objective reality which resolves the parodox; namely, that the car fits in both frames. And I've found a video that proves just that. So your claim that there's no objective reality is pure BS. AG 

The "car garage parking paradox" refers to a thought experiment in special relativity where, due to the phenomenon of length contraction, a car traveling at near the speed of light appears to be shorter from the perspective of an observer in a stationary garage, potentially allowing the car to fit inside the garage even though it is normally too long, while from the car's perspective, the garage appears shorter and the car wouldn't fit; creating a seeming paradox about whether the car can fit inside the garage or not depending on the frame of reference.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDqUbBYpB_k#:~:text=from%20the%20car's%20reference%20rate%20however%20the,will%20get%20smashed%20by%20the%20garage%20doors.&text=in%20order%20to%20find%20out%20we%20must,use%20our%20friends%20the%20lorentz%20transformation%20equations.

[Alan Grayson]

On Sunday, December 29, 2024 at 3:03:22 AM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote:

On Saturday, December 28, 2024 at 4:05:26 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:

On 12/28/2024 3:45 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:

Do you know how the SR problem is stated, I mean really know? It's like this; you have a car and a garage, with the car longer than the garage. Can you use SR to make the car fit in the garage? Well, of course. All that's required is to speed the car to a velocity which, from the frame of the car, contracts the garage sufficiently to get it to fit.

That's not even a correct statement of the paradox.  You make the car fit the the garage in the garage frame by speeding the car up so the car is Lorentz contracted (I really liked the original tank trap version better). Brent

 

I just noticed your comment. Sure, I didn't use the words "Lorentz contracted", but does anyone doubt this is what I meant? Is it really worth trying to crucify me for a minor oversight in language? I guess the answer for you is affirmative. AG 

[Alan Grayson]

On Sunday, December 29, 2024 at 4:44:35 AM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote:

On Sunday, December 29, 2024 at 3:03:22 AM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote:

On Saturday, December 28, 2024 at 4:05:26 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:

On 12/28/2024 3:45 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:

Do you know how the SR problem is stated, I mean really know? It's like this; you have a car and a garage, with the car longer than the garage. Can you use SR to make the car fit in the garage? Well, of course. All that's required is to speed the car to a velocity which, from the frame of the car, contracts the garage sufficiently to get it to fit.

That's not even a correct statement of the paradox.  You make the car fit the the garage in the garage frame by speeding the car up so the car is Lorentz contracted (I really liked the original tank trap version better). Brent

 

I just noticed your comment. Sure, I didn't use the words "Lorentz contracted", but does anyone doubt this is what I meant? Is it really worth trying to crucify me for a minor oversight in language? I guess the answer for you is affirmative. AG 

Here's another video which shows the paradox is resolved by demonstrating that the car fits in both frames, again affirming my intuition that 1), the paradox is caused by the apparent disagreement between the frames that the car fits in garage; and 2), the fact that using the LT properly, by including time dilation, there does exist an objective reality wherein the car fits in garage in both frames. Why then, when I asked you to affirm the existence of this objective reality, you denied it? AG

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HtKe9POc_Q

[John Clark]

On Sat, Dec 28, 2024 at 5:55 PM Russell Standish <li...@hpcoders.com.au> wrote:

> The trouble is that the alternative of a single objective reality that you argue for is not a falsifiable scientific theory either. The real problem is that Occams razor actually prefers the everything theory over a single objective reality.

Very well stated I think.  

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

ub0

[John Clark]

On Sat, Dec 28, 2024 at 6:53 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I have no inherent objection to the existence of many worlds. It's plausible in the context of continuous inflation, but surely not in the context of the MW

It's plausible in the context of Quantum Mechanics. And don't call me Shirley.  

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

tsm

[Alan Grayson]

Seriously, you don't know what you're claiming.  QM is easily falsified,

on every measurement ! , but the MWI has no measurements since its

worlds don't interact. Is this one of the strawman arguments you refer

to?  AG

[Alan Grayson]

When I asked whether there's an objective reality, you denied it  -- and in one of your responses here you again denied it -- but it exists and consists of the car fitting in both frames. Maybe you're suffering from Alzheimer's onset. My intuition was correct, or possibly you don't understand English as well as you think. Why would you expect me to study your plots if you showed lack of understanding what a solution would imply? AG 

[Brent Meeker]

On 12/29/2024 2:03 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDqUbBYpB_k#:~:text=from%20the%20car's%20reference%20rate%20however%20the,will%20get%20smashed%20by%20the%20garage%20doors.&text=in%20order%20to%20find%20out%20we%20must,use%20our%20friends%20the%20lorentz%20transformation%20equations.

They are just calculating the position of the ends of the car in the garage frame so it it is contracted.

Brent

[Alan Grayson]

Does it show the car fits from the car frame, which is the claim? Maybe this video is better. AG

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HtKe9POc_Q

[Quentin Anciaux]

How can you feel no shame being so stupid? 

--
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-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/3a7af9ca-dbf8-404f-a5ff-aca92a48d5ban%40googlegroups.com.

[Brent Meeker]

On 12/29/2024 3:44 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:

All that's required is to speed the car to a velocity which, from the frame of the car, contracts the garage sufficiently to get it to fit.

That's not even a correct statement of the paradox.  You make the car fit the the garage in the garage frame by speeding the car up so the car is Lorentz contracted (I really liked the original tank trap version better). Brent

 

I just noticed your comment. Sure, I didn't use the words "Lorentz contracted", but does anyone doubt this is what I meant? Is it really worth trying to crucify me for a minor oversight in language? I guess the answer for you is affirmative. AG

That's not the error.  The error is that you wrote that idea is to speed the car up so that in the frame the care the garage is contracted to make it fit.

Brent

[Alan Grayson]

On Sunday, December 29, 2024 at 3:10:35 PM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote:

Le dim. 29 déc. 2024, 21:08, Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> a écrit :

On Saturday, December 28, 2024 at 6:24:51 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:

On 12/28/2024 5:00 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Saturday, December 28, 2024 at 4:05:26 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:

On 12/28/2024 3:45 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:

Do you know how the SR problem is stated, I mean really know? It's like this; you have a car and a garage, with the car longer than the garage. Can you use SR to make the car fit in the garage? Well, of course. All that's required is to speed the car to a velocity which, from the frame of the car, contracts the garage sufficiently to get it to fit.

That's not even a correct statement of the paradox.  You make the car fit the the garage in the garage frame by speeding the car up so the car is Lorentz contracted (I really liked the original tank trap version better).

Problem solved, or so it appears. The various self appointed experts and gurus have an allegedly better solution, but ostensibly somewhat more complicated. Instead of considering length contraction of the garage, they apply the disagreement about simultaneity to show the car won't fit from the pov of the car frame, but does fit from the pov of the garage frame. So, as you should be able to comprehend, both methods give the SAME result! So where is the paradox?

Truly, it resides in the more-or-less unstated assumption, that there exists an OBJECTIVE reality which precludes this result; that the car fits in the garage frame, but doesn't fit in the car frame.

It's not only unstated, it's un-assumed and non-existent. It's no one's version of the paradox...much less "objective reality".  Rather it is Grayson's imagined reality.

Brent

How about revealing YOUR version of the paradox? Cat got your tongue? AG

I've both explained it and diagrammed it.  As Oliver Heaviside said, "I've given you an argument.  I'm not obliged to give you an understanding."

Brent

When I asked whether there's an objective reality, you denied it  -- and in one of your responses here you again denied it -- but it exists and consists of the car fitting in both frames. Maybe you're suffering from Alzheimer's onset. My intuition was correct, or possibly you don't understand English as well as you think. Why would you expect me to study your plots if you showed lack of understanding what a solution would imply? AG 

How can you feel no shame being so stupid? 

In your opinion, does the car fit in the garage in both frames? AG 

[Alan Grayson]

You're correct. I've written it correctly numerous times. Must have been a typo. Speeding up the car, contracts the car from the pov of the garage frame, so it fits in garage. AG

[Brent Meeker]

On 12/29/2024 4:08 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:

Here's another video which shows the paradox is resolved by demonstrating that the car fits in both frames, again affirming my intuition that 1), the paradox is caused by the apparent disagreement between the frames that the car fits in garage; and 2), the fact that using the LT properly, by including time dilation, there does exist an objective reality wherein the car fits in garage in both frames. Why then, when I asked you to affirm the existence of this objective reality, you denied it? AG

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HtKe9POc_Q

You don't even understand the things you post...or you're just trolling.  Here's a still from that video.



Look at the numbers in the box, the entrance and exit numbers from the garage point of view.  Back enters at 1.6e-8 and Front exits at 1.8e-8, AFTER the back had entered.  So the pole was entirely within the garage, from the garage pov.  Now look at the numbers calculated on the upper right.  These are the numbers from the cars point of view.   Back enters at 3.70e-8 sec and Front exits 8.07e-9 sec.  The Front exits BEFORE the back enters.  The pole is not entirely within the garage!  And then the discrepancy is illustrated by an animation, clearly showing the pole (ladder) doesn't fit in the garage in the frame in which the garage is moving.



Yet you write, "Here's another video which shows the paradox is resolved by demonstrating that the car fits in both frames,".

Brent

[Brent Meeker]

I don't find the Occam's razor argument very persuasive.  First, having an infinity of universes does seem very simple.  Sure it's argued that the THEORY is simpler, but who says that that saving a few lines of theory trumps having an extra bazillion universes.  And if you favor the MWI why not take it all the way like our friend Bruno and say that everything computable happens.  That's a "simple" theory too.  And when exactly does the world split?  Is it within the forward light cone?  And where exactly is the point of that cone?  What happens there that produces the Born rule? 

Personally I tend to take a more instrumentalist view of QM.

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-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0%3DR7%2B9%2B2wKW9XrLctRCzwtC7ZO77PDCTtjqRXFFMz81A%40mail.gmail.com.

[Alan Grayson]

On Sunday, December 29, 2024 at 4:38:06 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:

On 12/29/2024 4:08 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:

Here's another video which shows the paradox is resolved by demonstrating that the car fits in both frames, again affirming my intuition that 1), the paradox is caused by the apparent disagreement between the frames that the car fits in garage; and 2), the fact that using the LT properly, by including time dilation, there does exist an objective reality wherein the car fits in garage in both frames. Why then, when I asked you to affirm the existence of this objective reality, you denied it? AG

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HtKe9POc_Q

You don't even understand the things you post...or you're just trolling. 

As a teacher, you're a real prick. I did view it, but toward the end I didn't understand it fully. So I asked for your opinion. But all you are capable of is mind--reading and abuse. FU, AG

[Alan Grayson]

I should have wriiten " ... allegedly resolved ... ".   In your opinion, can it be shown the car fits in garage from the car's frame? If not, the paradox is alive and well, and SR is in trouble. AG

Brent

[Brent Meeker]

??? You should have written the video shows that the pole fits in one reference frame (the garage's) and not in the other (the pole's).   I don't know whether that "allegedly resolves" the paradox for you or not.

Brent

[Alan Grayson]

In other alleged SR paradoxes, where observers are juxtaposed like the TP, the resolution involves some asymmetry, but not in this case. My question was, really, as far as you know, is there any way for the car to fit in the garage from the car's frame? For you, I suppose that the observers differing in their conclusion about fitting is not a problem. If so, my use of length contraction should have been sufficient for you, since the conclusion is the same as your plots. For me the disagreement is a problem, but it's hard to come up with a convincing argument why that's the case. On the Internet, it seems to be assumed that such disagreement produces what appears to be a paradox, but it's not argued why this is so. In my discussions with Jesse I tried to imagine a Bird's Eye Observer, for an observer, say, from a satellite with the garage being open on the top, to determine what would be observed, by an alleged objective observer, but I'm not sure this is helpful in this case. AG

[Alan Grayson]

In other alleged SR paradoxes, where observers are juxtaposed like the TP, the resolution involves some asymmetry, but not in this case. My question was, really, as far as you know, is there any way for the car to fit in the garage from the car's frame? For you, I suppose that the observers differing in their conclusion about fitting is not a problem. If so, my use of length contraction should have been sufficient for you, since the conclusion is the same as your plots. For me the disagreement is a problem, but it's hard to come up with a convincing argument why that's the case. On the Internet, it seems to be assumed that such disagreement produces what appears to be a paradox, but it's not argued why this is so. In my discussions with Jesse I tried to imagine a Bird's Eye Observer for an observer, say, from a satellite with the garage being open on the top, to determine what would be observed, by an alleged objective observer, but I'm not sure this is helpful in this case. AG

Here's another video, which I have NOT watched, which claims to resolve the "paradox" of disagreement about fitting between the two frames. You might want to view it and give me your opinion. Does it do what it claims? AG 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TU1tKTOIj4

[Alan Grayson]

The only asymmetry in this case involves the velocity of the car. Here, it's not an ideal case of two entities moving with respect to each other, and being the only entities in the universe, that allows us to conclude their motion is simply relative. AG 

[Quentin Anciaux]

--

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-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/cfeeb90a-fc9e-40b3-b3bc-15b2211e37d7n%40googlegroups.com.

[Alan Grayson]

What you demonstrate is a person of ordinary intelligence. A symptom of your condiiton is that you fail to ask a fairly deep question inherent in this issue; specifically, why is it considered a paradox when the frames reach opposite conclusions? I don't see this question asked on the Internet, even though the disagreement is alleged to be an apparent paradox. The videos I posted try to show the frames reach the same conclusion. Some fail, others I am not sure about. In Brent's case, IIUC, he's not bothered that the frames disagree. So it surely seems there's an unanswered question here. Finally, when I asked you about your position, you refuse to answer. So, either you're a coward, or aren't clear what your actual position is. AG 

[Quentin Anciaux]

I've answered *multiple* times, it all boils down to a disagreement about simultaneity, not our fault if alan the genius cannot comprehend it because he's so smart and has falsified SR via his fatal blowjob. Please leave this list, the name of this list is the everything list, created by Wei Dai to talk about everything type theories, not low iq troll.  Please leave this list alone of your shit. It doesn't stink to you because it's your own shit, keep it for you

 Bye

--

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-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5412987d-509a-4e06-882b-66316d5ba9d3n%40googlegroups.com.

[Alan Grayson]

On Monday, December 30, 2024 at 4:36:11 AM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote:

I've answered *multiple* times, it all boils down to a disagreement about simultaneity,

As I've told you multiple times, that's not enough. Does it mean the frames disagree, and if so, why is it that on the Internet it is generally agreed that this affirms the paradox? Brent seems not to care about the disagreement, so does he endorse or deny the paradox? You're a vulgar fool who doesn't understand the issue, and thinks saying something about simultaneity is the full and complete answer. AG

[John Clark]

On Sun, Dec 29, 2024 at 9:24 PM Brent Meeker <meeke...@gmail.com> wrote:

>I don't find the Occam's razor argument very persuasive.  First, having an infinity of universes does seem very simple. 

The number of universes is irrelevant because Occam's razor is about picking the theory that needs the fewest assumptions to explain observations, it is NOT about picking the theory that produces the simplest consequences; and all those many worlds are the result of the one and only assumption that Many Worlds makes, everything always obeys Schrodinger's Equation.  Many World's rivals say everything always obeys Schrodinger's equation EXCEPT when they don't, like when you observe them. Then they obey entirely different laws of physics. To make matters even worse they are very unclear about what "observe" means and what qualities a thing needs in order to be granted the honorific title "you".    

 > And if you favor the MWI why not take it all the way like our friend Bruno and say that everything computable happens. 

Because Bruno had nothing equivalent to the two slit experiment, and because Occam's razor says a theory should always make the smallest assumptions, and "everything computable happens" includes "everything obeys Schrodinger's equation" BUT it also contains an infinite amount of other stuff that is unnecessary to explain observations.  

 

> And when exactly does the world split? 

Whenever the laws of physics as described by Quantum Mechanics says there is a possibility of a change.  

 

> Is it within the forward light cone? 

It is within A forward light cone but if Many Worlds is correct then there is no such thing as THE forward light cone, except perhaps the one produced at the first Planck Time after the Big Bang. But nobody has a good understanding about what was going on that early in the universe.

> And where exactly is the point of that cone? 

The place and the time that the change had occurred. After that the change radiated outward at either the speed of light or instantaneously, take your pick it makes no observable difference. 

 

> What happens there that produces the Born rule? 

What happens is the only thing that could happen if Schrodinger's Equation is going to produce a set of positive real numbers between 0 and 1 that always add up to exactly one. 

> Personally I tend to take a more instrumentalist view of QM.

OK. There's nothing wrong with the "Shut Up And Calculate" quantum interpretation if you're only interested in predicting what value you're going to get on your voltmeter and don't care about what's actually going on.  

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

bid

[Quentin Anciaux]

Chatgpt is your friend and accept an infinite amount of trolling, here is its a correct answer:

The scenario you're referring to is a classic thought experiment in special relativity called the "ladder paradox" or "pole-and-barn paradox". It illustrates how the effects of Lorentz contraction and the relativity of simultaneity work together to resolve what seems like a paradox.

The Setup:

Imagine a car moving at a relativistic speed (close to the speed of light) towards a garage. The car is longer than the garage when measured in their respective rest frames. The question is: can the car fit entirely inside the garage for a moment, given Lorentz contraction?

Lorentz Contraction:

1. In the garage's frame of reference (rest frame of the garage):

Due to the Lorentz contraction, the moving car appears shorter than its rest length. This contraction occurs along the direction of motion.

From the garage's perspective, it seems that the car becomes short enough to fit entirely inside the garage for a moment.

2. In the car's frame of reference (rest frame of the car):

The car perceives the garage as moving toward it at relativistic speed. Due to Lorentz contraction, the garage appears even shorter than its rest length.

From the car's perspective, it seems impossible for the car to fit inside the garage, as the garage is too short.

Relativity of Simultaneity:

The apparent paradox arises because different observers disagree on what events are simultaneous. Here's how this resolves the situation:

1. In the garage's frame:

The garage can be equipped with two doors: a front door and a back door.

At one specific instant (according to the garage's clock), both doors can close simultaneously, with the car fully inside the garage.

2. In the car's frame:

Simultaneity is relative. The car's frame does not agree that the front and back doors close at the same time.

Instead, it perceives the back door closing first and the front door closing later (or vice versa, depending on the direction of motion).

Resolving the Paradox:

1. In the garage's frame, the car can fit entirely inside the garage due to Lorentz contraction.

2. In the car's frame, the car never fits entirely inside the garage. However, because simultaneity is relative, the sequence of door closures ensures that no collision occurs, and the situation is physically consistent in both frames.

Key Takeaway:

The apparent paradox arises from treating simultaneity as absolute (like in classical mechanics). Special relativity shows that simultaneity depends on the observer's frame of reference, and Lorentz contraction is observed differently depending on the frame. This resolves the contradiction and maintains consistency with the principles of relativity.

Use chatgpt and *leave this list alone*

--

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-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/cc805ab2-34e2-438a-8006-3c2dc320b152n%40googlegroups.com.

[Alan Grayson]

On Monday, December 30, 2024 at 6:13:18 AM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote:

Chatgpt is your friend and accept an infinite amount of trolling, here is its a correct answer:

The scenario you're referring to is a classic thought experiment in special relativity called the "ladder paradox" or "pole-and-barn paradox". It illustrates how the effects of Lorentz contraction and the relativity of simultaneity work together to resolve what seems like a paradox.

The Setup:

Imagine a car moving at a relativistic speed (close to the speed of light) towards a garage. The car is longer than the garage when measured in their respective rest frames. The question is: can the car fit entirely inside the garage for a moment, given Lorentz contraction?

Lorentz Contraction:

1. In the garage's frame of reference (rest frame of the garage):

Due to the Lorentz contraction, the moving car appears shorter than its rest length. This contraction occurs along the direction of motion.

From the garage's perspective, it seems that the car becomes short enough to fit entirely inside the garage for a moment.

2. In the car's frame of reference (rest frame of the car):

The car perceives the garage as moving toward it at relativistic speed. Due to Lorentz contraction, the garage appears even shorter than its rest length.

From the car's perspective, it seems impossible for the car to fit inside the garage, as the garage is too short.

Relativity of Simultaneity:

The apparent paradox arises because different observers disagree on what events are simultaneous. Here's how this resolves the situation:

1. In the garage's frame:

The garage can be equipped with two doors: a front door and a back door.

At one specific instant (according to the garage's clock), both doors can close simultaneously, with the car fully inside the garage.

2. In the car's frame:

Simultaneity is relative. The car's frame does not agree that the front and back doors close at the same time.

Instead, it perceives the back door closing first and the front door closing later (or vice versa, depending on the direction of motion).

 How does this guarantee no collision? AG 

Resolving the Paradox:

1. In the garage's frame, the car can fit entirely inside the garage due to Lorentz contraction.

2. In the car's frame, the car never fits entirely inside the garage.

This is exactly my result using length contraction. AG 

What would a Bird's Eye Observer resident in an overhead satellite observe if the garage had no roof? AG

However, because simultaneity is relative, the sequence of door closures ensures that no collision occurs, and the situation is physically consistent in both frames.

This result, a disgreement between the frames is what, on the Internet, is called a paradox. Everyone knows about simultaneity being relative. We all know about it. Why then do videos trying to resolve it, try to get the car fit in garage from the car frame? AG 

[Jesse Mazer]

Do you watch these videos all the way through before posting links? In this one he says at 4:35 that "the solution to our paradox" is that while the doors are able to close simultaneously in the barn's frame with the pole inside, in the pole's frame the door closings are not simultaneous. After actually calculating the times in the pole frame using the LT, he says at 6:45 "Just think about what this means: the time that the back door closes is significantly before the front door closes. In other words, as the barn is moving towards the pole, the back door closes momentarily and then opens up immediately after. And when the back of the pole enters the barn the front door closes. So the closing of the doors that occurred simultaneously in one frame of reference does not occur simultaneously in the other frame of reference, and our paradox is resolved."

Jesse 

[Brent Meeker]

On 12/30/2024 4:13 AM, John Clark wrote:

On Sun, Dec 29, 2024 at 9:24 PM Brent Meeker <meeke...@gmail.com> wrote:

>I don't find the Occam's razor argument very persuasive.  First, having an infinity of universes does seem very simple. 

The number of universes is irrelevant because Occam's razor is about picking the theory that needs the fewest assumptions to explain observations, it is NOT about picking the theory that produces the simplest consequences;

One of my point was that the your assertion about Occam's razor is just that.  There is no proof, nor can there be that this measure of "simplicity" is what Occam really meant, or is the real and true simplicity.  It is just the revisionist thinking since Occam's time that has leaned to the "fewest assumptions" idea.  His actual "razor" was, "Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity."  Not "assumptions" but "entities".

and all those many worlds are the result of the one and only assumption that Many Worlds makes, everything always obeys Schrodinger's Equation. 

And it makes the assumption that somehow when we figure it out and we're really, really, that we will (probably) explain how our world splits off and the Born rule obtains without anymore assumptions.

Many World's rivals say everything always obeys Schrodinger's equation EXCEPT when they don't, like when you observe them. Then they obey entirely different laws of physics. To make matters even worse they are very unclear about what "observe" means and what qualities a thing needs in order to be granted the honorific title "you".

Straw man!  Nobody says that. And note that the Schrodinger equation is also unclear except it isolated laboratory experiments (where "measurement" is clear).  It is unclear whether an air molecule bouncing this way instead of that splits the world or not.  Speculation is that some "amplification" is required but this not exactly clear.  So don't gimme that BS about "nothing but the Schrodinger equation".

  

 > And if you favor the MWI why not take it all the way like our friend Bruno and say that everything computable happens. 

Because Bruno had nothing equivalent to the two slit experiment, and because Occam's razor says a theory should always make the smallest assumptions, and "everything computable happens" includes "everything obeys Schrodinger's equation" BUT it also contains an infinite amount of other stuff that is unnecessary to explain observations. 

You mean like an infinite number of universe and not just alpha-nought number but a continuum infinity of worlds.

 

> And when exactly does the world split? 

Whenever the laws of physics as described by Quantum Mechanics says there is a possibility of a change.  

 

> Is it within the forward light cone? 

It is within A forward light cone but if Many Worlds is correct then there is no such thing as THE forward light cone, except perhaps the one produced at the first Planck Time after the Big Bang. But nobody has a good understanding about what was going on that early in the universe.

> And where exactly is the point of that cone? 

The place and the time that the change had occurred.

What change?  A change that's "observable"?

After that the change radiated outward at either the speed of light or instantaneously, take your pick it makes no observable difference.

 

> What happens there that produces the Born rule? 

What happens is the only thing that could happen if Schrodinger's Equation is going to produce a set of positive real numbers between 0 and 1 that always add up to exactly one.

That doesn't necessarily produce the Born rule.  And the Born rule applies in our sequence of worlds were we observe 1's and 0's not real numbers between 0 and 1 derived from Schrodinger's equation.

> Personally I tend to take a more instrumentalist view of QM.

OK. There's nothing wrong with the "Shut Up And Calculate" quantum interpretation if you're only interested in predicting what value you're going to get on your voltmeter and don't care about what's actually going on. 

"Actually going on."??  That's pretty funny.  What's going on is hubris and plastering over cracks so that people can feel satisfied in "knowing what's going on".

Brent

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

bid

--
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-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1Gvj-nEgpC79QtvCK6Tzah_ObCkfCeVP3C5Au3F7TH2A%40mail.gmail.com.

[John Clark]

On Mon, Dec 30, 2024 at 4:51 PM Brent Meeker <meeke...@gmail.com> wrote:

my point was that the your assertion about Occam's razor is just that.  There is no proof, nor can there be that this measure of "simplicity" is what Occam really meant, or is the real and true simplicity.  It is just the revisionist thinking since Occam's time that has leaned to the "fewest assumptions" idea.  His actual "razor" was, "Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity."  Not "assumptions" but "entities".

I am quite certain  "entities" is  NOT the word William of Ockham used because he was born in the 13th century and spoke Middle English (which sounds more like German than English to a speaker of modern English)  and wrote exclusively in Latin. And whatever Latin word he used instead of "entities|" it must've meant a thing that has not been proved, a.k.a. an assumption, I mean, what else could he have meant? Why in the world would he object to taking  things that HAVE been proven into account when forming a theory?  

This is what Wikipedia has to say about Ockham;s Razor:

"The Razor advocates that when presented with competing hypotheses about the same prediction and both hypotheses have equal explanatory power, one should prefer the hypothesis that requires the fewest assumptions"

>>all those many worlds are the result of the one and only assumption that Many Worlds makes, everything always obeys Schrodinger's Equation. 

> And it makes the assumption that somehow when we figure it out and we're really, really, that we will (probably) explain how our world splits off and the Born rule obtains without anymore assumptions.

Sorry but I can't quite parse that sentence. 

 

And note that the Schrodinger equation is also unclear except it isolated laboratory experiments

Exactly the same the could be said about the law of conservation of matter, when I light a piece of paper on fire it sure seems like matter is destroyed, and we only realized it when we lit a piece of paper in isolated isolated laboratory experiments/  

 

> It is unclear whether an air molecule bouncing this way instead of that splits the world or not. 

Maybe  Worlds is wrong but it is not unclear,  if  the laws of physics allow for an air molecule to bounce two different ways and Many Worlds is right then the world splits. If it's wrong then it doesn't.   

 

  

>>Bruno had nothing equivalent to the two slit experiment, and because Occam's razor says a theory should always make the smallest assumptions, and "everything computable happens" includes "everything obeys Schrodinger's equation" BUT it also contains an infinite amount of other stuff that is unnecessary to explain observations. 

 

You mean like an infinite number of universe and not just alpha-nought number but a continuum infinity of worlds.

According to Many Wolds there might be an infinite number of worlds or there might only be an astronomical Number to an astronomical power of them, it takes no position in the finite versus infinite debate. And as I keep telling you, Hugh Everett didn't just conjure up all those worlds because he thought they were neat about me good science fiction stories, he did it because it's an  inevitable consequence of believing that Schrodinger's equation means what it says.  

 

The place and the time that the change had occurred.

What change?  A change that's "observable"?

No. But you already knew that. 

 

>>> What happens there that produces the Born rule?

 

 

>> What happens is the only thing that could happen if Schrodinger's Equation is going to produce a set of positive real numbers between 0 and 1 that always add up to exactly one.

 

> That doesn't necessarily produce the Born rule. 

 Yes it does! .According to Gleason's theorem the Born Rule DOES produce a set of numbers that

1) are all real numbers between zero and one 

2) all the numbers add up to exactly one. 

3) and the numbers multiply exactly the same way that the laws of probability multiply. 

And Gleason's theorem says one other thing, the Born Rule is the ONLY way to do it.

[Brent Meeker]

On 12/31/2024 4:20 AM, John Clark wrote:

On Mon, Dec 30, 2024 at 4:51 PM Brent Meeker <meeke...@gmail.com> wrote:

my point was that the your assertion about Occam's razor is just that.  There is no proof, nor can there be that this measure of "simplicity" is what Occam really meant, or is the real and true simplicity.  It is just the revisionist thinking since Occam's time that has leaned to the "fewest assumptions" idea.  His actual "razor" was, "Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity."  Not "assumptions" but "entities".

I am quite certain  "entities" is  NOT the word William of Ockham used because he was born in the 13th century and spoke Middle English (which sounds more like German than English to a speaker of modern English)  and wrote exclusively in Latin. And whatever Latin word he used instead of "entities|" it must've meant a thing that has not been proved, a.k.a. an assumption,

pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate, “plurality should not be posited without necessity.”  He doesn't say plurality of what. He makes no reference to proof.  That it refers to assumptions is a modern interpretation.

I mean, what else could he have meant? Why in the world would he object to taking  things that HAVE been proven into account when forming a theory? 

You have gratuitously assumed it had to do with proof.

This is what Wikipedia has to say about Ockham;s Razor:

"The Razor advocates that when presented with competing hypotheses about the same prediction and both hypotheses have equal explanatory power, one should prefer the hypothesis that requires the fewest assumptions"

And Wikipedia just records current thoughts on Occam's razor.

>>all those many worlds are the result of the one and only assumption that Many Worlds makes, everything always obeys Schrodinger's Equation. 

> And it makes the assumption that somehow when we figure it out and we're really, really, that we will (probably) explain how our world splits off and the Born rule obtains without anymore assumptions.

Sorry but I can't quite parse that sentence.  Add "sure" after "really, really".

 

And note that the Schrodinger equation is also unclear except it isolated laboratory experiments

Exactly the same the could be said about the law of conservation of matter, when I light a piece of paper on fire it sure seems like matter is destroyed, and we only realized it when we lit a piece of paper in isolated isolated laboratory experiments/  

 

> It is unclear whether an air molecule bouncing this way instead of that splits the world or not. 

Maybe  Worlds is wrong but it is not unclear,  if  the laws of physics allow for an air molecule to bounce two different ways and Many Worlds is right then the world splits. If it's wrong then it doesn't. 

I thought the big advantage of MWI in your view is that it told you what really happens.  So when the molecules can bounce two different ways, what Schroedinger's equation predicts a is a superposition.  Not a mixture.  In other words they bounce both different ways.

In parallel to your burning paper example, we have not tested bouncing two molecules and detecting whether the world splits.  In fact we never detect whether the world splits.  We only get this or that result.  We have a theory that predicts the probability that this or that result occurs.  So why isn't assuming that other results occur where they can't be observed postulating pluralities.  Why is the interpretation of probability, which you claim is built into Schroedinger's equation plus Gleason's theorem, not the probability that one thing occurs and not any other.

>>Bruno had nothing equivalent to the two slit experiment, and because Occam's razor says a theory should always make the smallest assumptions, and "everything computable happens" includes "everything obeys Schrodinger's equation" BUT it also contains an infinite amount of other stuff that is unnecessary to explain observations. 

 

You mean like an infinite number of universe and not just alpha-nought number but a continuum infinity of worlds.

According to Many Wolds there might be an infinite number of worlds or there might only be an astronomical Number to an astronomical power of them, it takes no position in the finite versus infinite debate. And as I keep telling you, Hugh Everett didn't just conjure up all those worlds because he thought they were neat about me good science fiction stories, he did it because it's an  inevitable consequence of believing that Schrodinger's equation means what it says. 

Hugh Everett didn't conjure them up at all.  His was the "relative state" interpretation.  Bryce Dewitt is mainly responsible for the many worlds idea.

 

The place and the time that the change had occurred.

What change?  A change that's "observable"?

No. But you already knew that.

See the bouncing molecules above.

 

>>> What happens there that produces the Born rule?

 

 

>> What happens is the only thing that could happen if Schrodinger's Equation is going to produce a set of positive real numbers between 0 and 1 that always add up to exactly one.

Except Schoedinger's equation produces a lot of complex values until you make a measurement (which is NOT described by the Schroedinger eqn).

Brent

 

> That doesn't necessarily produce the Born rule. 

 Yes it does! .According to Gleason's theorem the Born Rule DOES produce a set of numbers that

1) are all real numbers between zero and one 

2) all the numbers add up to exactly one. 

3) and the numbers multiply exactly the same way that the laws of probability multiply. 

And Gleason's theorem says one other thing, the Born Rule is the ONLY way to do it.

--
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-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1pAAkBnt6sJWHQFQC9CUhH8vbpXDQ0dyqNZGUsWf4Z5w%40mail.gmail.com.

[John Clark]

On Wed, Jan 1, 2025 at 12:02 AM Brent Meeker <meeke...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> I am quite certain  "entities" is  NOT the word William of Ockham used because he was born in the 13th century and spoke Middle English (which sounds more like German than English to a speaker of modern English) and wrote exclusively in Latin. And whatever Latin word he used instead of "entities" it must've meant a thing that has not been proved, a.k.a. an assumption,

> pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate, “plurality should not be posited without necessity.”

The dictionary on my Mac says the definition of the word "posited" is "assumed as a fact". Assumed! 

 

> He doesn't say plurality of what.

Yes, and I am quite certain that was because he thought the answer was obvious. And he was right, it is. And the definition of "plurality" is the numerousness of a thing.  And an assumption is a thing.

 

> He makes no reference to proof. 

William of Ockham was a philosopher, a learned man, so he must've been familiar with Euclid and the concept of proof. Do you really think he was suggesting that if you had difficulty solving a geometric problem you should just make up a new axiom besides the ones that Euclid assumed if it makes it easier for you to complete your proof?!  

 

>>> That it refers to assumptions is a modern interpretation.

>> I mean, what else could he have meant? Why in the world would he object to taking  things that HAVE been proven into account when forming a theory? 

> You have gratuitously assumed it had to do with proof.

You never answered my question.  What else could he have meant? Why in the world would he object to taking things that HAVE been proven into account when forming a theory?

 

>> This is what Wikipedia has to say about Ockham's Razor:
"The Razor advocates that when presented with competing hypotheses about the same prediction and both hypotheses have equal explanatory power, one should prefer the hypothesis that requires the fewest assumptions"

> And Wikipedia just records current thoughts on Occam's razor.

It's odd, although it was on a completely different subject, only about a week ago another person on this list also insisted that I was wrong and Wikipedia was wrong and the AI Claude was wrong but they were right. And this is what Claude said when I started a new session and simply asked it "What can you tell me about "Ockham's Razor?"":

"While often stated as "the simplest explanation is usually the correct one,"a more accurate formulation would be that among competing hypotheses that explain the observed data equally well, we should select the one requiring the fewest assumptions."

>> Maybe Worlds is wrong but it is not unclear,  if  the laws of physics allow for an air molecule to bounce two different ways and Many Worlds is right then the world splits. If it's wrong then it doesn't. 

 

> I thought the big advantage of MWI in your view is that it told you what really happens.

All quantum interpretations do equally well at predicting what "you" will see, or rather what "you" will probably see, but with the exception of Shut Up And Calculate and Many Worlds they all require additional assumptions to explain why their prediction method works.   

 

 > So when the molecules can bounce two different ways, what Schroedinger's equation predicts a is a superposition.  Not a mixture. 

Schroedinger's equation predicts neither a superposition nor a mixture, it exactly predicts how a complex wave in Hilbert space will evolve; and we know from experiment that if we assume an electron has such a complex wave associated with it and take the square of the absolute value of that wave we can get a probability that an experimenter will observe that an object will be at a particular point and have a particular momentum at a particular time.  We know for a fact that this works, but the big question is why does it work?

Copenhagen needs an additional assumption to explain it and insists that unlike the electron the experimenter has NO such complex wave associated with him and thus is a classical object. Many Worlds does not need that assumption, it says everything always obeys Schrodinger's equation, no exceptions. 

>> According to Many Wolds there might be an infinite number of worlds or there might only be an astronomical Number to an astronomical power of them, it takes no position in the finite versus infinite debate. And as I keep telling you, Hugh Everett didn't just conjure up all those worlds because he thought they were neat and made good science fiction stories, he did it because it's an  inevitable consequence of believing that Schrodinger's equation means what it says. 

> Hugh Everett didn't conjure them up at all.  His was the "relative state" interpretation.  Bryce Dewitt is mainly responsible for the many worlds idea.

 

Most physicists knew nothing about Hugh Everett or his 1957 PhD thesis, Bryce Dewitt is the one who brought it to their attention. Unfortunately John Wheeler, Everett's thesis advisor, made him cut out about half the stuff in his original 137 page thesis and tone down the language so it didn't sound like he thought all those other universes were equally real when in fact he did. For example, Wheeler didn't like the word "split" and was especially uncomfortable with talk of conscious observers splitting, most seriously he made him remove the entire chapter on information and probability which today many consider the best part of the work. His long thesis was not published until 1973, if that version had been published in 1957, instead of the truncated Bowdlerized version, things would have been different; plenty of people would still have disagreed but he would not have been ignored for as long as he was.

Here is an example of something that Everett wrote that Wheeler made him remove from his thesis: 

"As an analogy one can imagine an intelligent amoeba with a good memory. As time progresses the amoeba is constantly splitting, each time the resulting amoebas having the same memories as the parent. Our amoeba hence does not have a life line, but a life tree."

> Schoedinger's equation produces a lot of complex values until you make a measurement (which is NOT described by the Schroedinger eqn).

Huh?

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

7t6

[Russell Standish]

On Wed, Jan 01, 2025 at 09:01:49AM -0500, John Clark wrote:
>
> Here is an example of something that Everett wrote that Wheeler made him remove
> from his thesis: 
>
> "As an analogy one can imagine an intelligent amoeba with a good memory. As
> time progresses the amoeba is constantly splitting, each time the resulting
> amoebas having the same memories as the parent. Our amoeba hence does not have
> a life line, but a life tree."
>
>

Wow - that even predates Bruno Marchal's revelations on amoebas by a
few years. See Amoeba's Secret, chapter 2.

It's amazing how human thought comes up with the same notions
independently around the same time.

Cheers

--

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders hpc...@hpcoders.com.au
http://www.hpcoders.com.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Bruce Kellett]

On Thu, Jan 2, 2025 at 1:02 AM John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, Jan 1, 2025 at 12:02 AM Brent Meeker <meeke...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> I am quite certain  "entities" is  NOT the word William of Ockham used because he was born in the 13th century and spoke Middle English (which sounds more like German than English to a speaker of modern English) and wrote exclusively in Latin. And whatever Latin word he used instead of "entities" it must've meant a thing that has not been proved, a.k.a. an assumption,

> pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate, “plurality should not be posited without necessity.”

The dictionary on my Mac says the definition of the word "posited" is "assumed as a fact". Assumed! 

 

> He doesn't say plurality of what.

Yes, and I am quite certain that was because he thought the answer was obvious.

It must be wonderful to be able to read the mind of someone who has been dead for almost 800 years!

Bruce

[Quentin Anciaux]

Look at the sky, look at the size of the visible universe and all the entities we can see... I don't see *many worlds* as more extravagant, there is already for sure a bazillion entities. 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/892f77f3-dc37-4490-95b0-ec26482b123b%40gmail.com.

[Alan Grayson]

On Wednesday, January 1, 2025 at 2:59:15 PM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote:

Look at the sky, look at the size of the visible universe and all the entities we can see... I don't see *many worlds* as more extravagant, there is already for sure a bazillion entities. 

It is more extravagant, hugely more extravagant. For example, it adds the postulate that everything that can happen, anything that's possible to happen, must happen. So, for example, when considering a horse race, every possible outcome of the race must exist, and for this to be realized, additional worlds must come into existence. It's claimed that this extravagant added postulate comes from Schrodinger's equation, but in fact it's nowhere in sight. Look for yourself if you don't believe me. Or consider what happens when a motorist turns at a T-intersection; not simply two worlds for each possible direction, but a myriad of worlds, perhaps uncountable, corresponding to all possible angles of turning. Moreover, in virtually all versions of the interpretation, the worlds are disjoint and therefore never interact. So the theory is non-testable. IMO, what we have here is a cult, and as such, when confronted with the added postulate and its justification, conjured from thin air as it were, there's never a response to its origin, since it surely does not originate from S's equation. IMO, FWIW, the MWI is pure fantasy, and a harmful one which has corrupted the mentality of the physics community. AG

[Alan Grayson]

On Wednesday, January 1, 2025 at 7:08:49 PM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote:

On Wednesday, January 1, 2025 at 2:59:15 PM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote:

Look at the sky, look at the size of the visible universe and all the entities we can see... I don't see *many worlds* as more extravagant, there is already for sure a bazillion entities. 

It is more extravagant, hugely more extravagant. For example, it adds the postulate that everything that can happen, anything that's possible to happen, must happen. So, for example, when considering a horse race, every possible outcome of the race must exist, and for this to be realized, additional worlds must come into existence. It's claimed that this extravagant added postulate comes from Schrodinger's equation, but in fact it's nowhere in sight. Look for yourself if you don't believe me. Or consider what happens when a motorist turns at a T-intersection; not simply two worlds for each possible direction, but a myriad of worlds, perhaps uncountable, corresponding to all possible angles of turning. Moreover, in virtually all versions of the interpretation, the worlds are disjoint and therefore never interact. So the theory is non-testable. IMO, what we have here is a cult, and as such, when confronted with the added postulate and its justification, conjured from thin air as it were, there's never a response to its origin, since it surely does not originate from S's equation. IMO, FWIW, the MWI is pure fantasy, and a harmful one which has corrupted the mentality of the physics community. AG

Quentin: Assuming you've read my minor dissertation on the MWI, hopefully you now have more respect for my analytical abilities. So, let's now briefly discuss the Lorents-Car-Parking paradox. I have been aware of the disagreement of simultaneity, but as I stated several times, more is needed to resolve the paradox than just the claim of that disagreement, which you never offered; that is, how EXACTLY does that disagreement translate into what the observers in the frames actually observe? In your last "simplification", IIRC, you had the car NOT fitting in the garage from the pov of the car frame, never mentioning the disagreement about simultaneity. If so, this clearly isn't a solution to the paradox, but simply a restating of it. In any event, I now have the solution, and like the Twin Paradox it requires the observation that although the frames are treated symmetrically / equivalently, such is NOT the case, and is the cause of the paradox. I will present my solution in full in the near future, but on the other thread where this issue is its main focus. AG

[John Clark]

On Wed, Jan 1, 2025 at 9:08 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, January 1, 2025 at 2:59:15 PM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote:

 

> Quinton: Look at the sky, look at the size of the visible universe and all the entities we can see... I don't see *many worlds* as more extravagant, there is already for sure a bazillion entities. 

I agree.  Many Worlds is certainly not more extravagant with assumptions, and when it comes to theories that's the only sort of extravagance that matters.

> Alan: It is more extravagant, hugely more extravagant.

Many Worlds  produces a much more extravagant outcome but it has far simpler assumptions than its competition, they need to work very hard to get rid of those unwanted worlds that they so much dislike.

Many Worlds assumes everything always obeys Schrodinger's Equation, or its relativistic counterpart the Dirac equation. That's it. 

Objective Collapse theory needs to add another very complicated term to Schrodinger's Equation that contains nondeterministic (a.k.a. random) elements;  and nobody has yet been able to produce a relativistic counterpart to that modified equation as Dirac had done for the unmodified Schrodinger Equation way back in 1927.

Pilot Wave Theory keeps Schrodinger's Equation but needs to add another entirely new very complicated equation called the Pilot Wave Equation that contains non-local variables. When an electron enters the two slit experiment the Pilot Wave in effect produces a little arrow pointing to one of the electrons with the caption under it saying "this is the real electron, ignore all the other ones".  The Pilot Wave does absolutely nothing except erase unwanted universes, it is for this reason that some have called Pilot Wave theory the Many Worlds theory in denial. 

The Pilot Wave is unique in another way, it can affect matter but matter cannot affect it, if it's real it would be the first time in the history of physics where an exception to Newton's credo that for every action there is a reaction;  even after the object it is pointing to is destroyed the pilot wave continues on, although now it is pointing at nothing and has no further effect on anything in the universe. Also, nobody has ever been able to make a relativistic version of the Pilot Wave Equation.

And then there is the Copenhagen Interpretation. Its fundamental assumption is "everything always obeys Schrodinger's Equation except when they don't". The trouble is that fans of Copenhagen can't agree, even among themselves, what the exceptions are. And all of them are very vague. Eugene Wigner and John von Newman thought consciousness collapses the wave function. Werner Heisenberg thought there was a sharp line dividing the microscopic quantum world and the macroscopic classical world, but he couldn't say exactly or even approximately where that line was. As for what Niels Bohr said, that depends on what day of the week you asked him, and even then what he wrote and said was almost incomprehensible. Bohr was a great scientist but a lousy philosopher. 

And that's why I think Copenhagen is just a euphemism for "shut up and calculate".And that is why I believe that Many Worlds is, at least so far, the best bad interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Perhaps tomorrow somebody will come up with a better idea but if they do I am certain of one thing, it will be even stranger than Many Worlds.  Nobody will ever be able to erase the weird from Quantum Mechanics. 

 > IMO, what we have here is a cult, 

And you have repeated that exact same insult about 19 dozen times, but no matter how many times a lie is repeated that doesn't make it true, although some seem to think it does. 

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

ald

[Alan Grayson]

As I wrote, it's my opinion, but an opinion based on facts, one of which is your conscious refusal to explain, how, using S's equation, you get to add the postulate that whatever is possible to happen, MUST happen? You choose not to answer, because you cannot justify this added postulate. It's a strategy to protect the foolishness of the MWI, aka a cult. AG

[John Clark]

It's interesting, you didn't even have time to read my post but of course that didn't prevent you from commenting on it. 

 

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

ald

--
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-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/63b99bc8-2b7a-40ff-b1b2-fcf57fbc8cb9n%40googlegroups.com.

[Alan Grayson]

Why would I waste my time reading your repetitious rationalizations for your cult theory. I see you continue to refuse my SUBSTANTIVE question. AG

[Bruce Kellett]

It is just as well that we don't rely on you for a balanced and unbiased view of the different quantum interpretations.

Bruce

[Alan Grayson]

On Sunday, December 29, 2024 at 3:01:11 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:

On 12/29/2024 2:03 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDqUbBYpB_k#:~:text=from%20the%20car's%20reference%20rate%20however%20the,will%20get%20smashed%20by%20the%20garage%20doors.&text=in%20order%20to%20find%20out%20we%20must,use%20our%20friends%20the%20lorentz%20transformation%20equations.

They are just calculating the position of the ends of the car in the garage frame so it it is contracted.

Brent

The sound on that video was poor at the end, so I wasn't sure what was proven. However, their last words was that the car also fits from car frame. So why do you say the car is contracted in the car frame, as if that's the only thing they established, which doesn't touch on the paradox? More important is what your plots prove. Please just state in text what you proved. TY, AG

[Alan Grayson]

He keeps saying I have been insulting him by calling his pov on the MWI a cult. But that's how I see it because he refuses, with numerous opportunities, to explain how, from S's equation, he concludes the everything that's possible to happen, MUST happen (which of course requires those other universes). It's really galling, his claim of being insulted when he refuses to justify one of the key postulates of his favorite interpretation. Many would call this type of behavior fundamentally dishonest. AG 

[Quentin Anciaux]

The troll playing the victim... when will it cease ?

--

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-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9adefe05-b40a-4132-bf09-32a76b787d82n%40googlegroups.com.

[Alan Grayson]

On Thursday, January 2, 2025 at 3:58:33 PM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote:

The troll playing the victim... when will it cease ?

 Since the CMBR defines a frame of absolute rest, how does this effect Special Relativity, if at all? AG

[Brent Meeker]

[Brent Meeker]

There's nothing "absolute" about the CMB.  It's just a widely available common reference.  The same way we often use the Earth as a reference.  The laws of physics are the same when moving inertially relative to the CMB as relative to the Earth or Moon.

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-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a8911dd5-1431-455f-8c97-b36a53ba97bbn%40googlegroups.com.

[Alan Grayson]

Sorry for the confusion. YOU posted that they concluded the car contracted in the garage frame, but at the very end the fellow said the car also fit in the car frame. Did they prove that and actually solve the paradox? Also, why won't you say exactly what your plots showed? I'm pretty sure I have a different solution, but I won't post it unless I know exactly what you think you proved. AG 

[Alan Grayson]

On Thursday, January 2, 2025 at 8:56:51 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:

There's nothing "absolute" about the CMB.  It's just a widely available common reference.  The same way we often use the Earth as a reference.  The laws of physics are the same when moving inertially relative to the CMB as relative to the Earth or Moon.

Brent

 

What does "absolute" mean? It sure seems as absolute as anyone can imagine; the same everywhere in the universe. AG 

[Brent Meeker]

On 1/2/2025 9:06 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Thursday, January 2, 2025 at 8:56:51 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:

There's nothing "absolute" about the CMB.  It's just a widely available common reference.  The same way we often use the Earth as a reference.  The laws of physics are the same when moving inertially relative to the CMB as relative to the Earth or Moon.

Brent

 

What does "absolute" mean?

It would mean that the laws of physics were special in some sense, e.g. took a special form, in an absolutely stationary state.

It sure seems as absolute as anyone can imagine; the same everywhere in the universe. AG

No.  It's just something that can be used as a reference, as could any other frame in inertial motion.  And it's not even a perfect reference since some parts move relative to others.

Brent

On 1/2/2025 4:34 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

 

        On Thursday, January 2, 2025 at 3:58:33 PM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote:

The troll playing the victim... when will it cease ?

 Since the CMBR defines a frame of absolute rest, how does this effect Special Relativity, if at all? AG

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d76d1562-eade-40f3-9d1b-29f849ce95e4n%40googlegroups.com.

[Alan Grayson]

On Thursday, January 2, 2025 at 11:25:00 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:

On 1/2/2025 9:06 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Thursday, January 2, 2025 at 8:56:51 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:

There's nothing "absolute" about the CMB.  It's just a widely available common reference.  The same way we often use the Earth as a reference.  The laws of physics are the same when moving inertially relative to the CMB as relative to the Earth or Moon.

Brent

 

What does "absolute" mean?

It would mean that the laws of physics were special in some sense, e.g. took a special form, in an absolutely stationary state.

It sure seems as absolute as anyone can imagine; the same everywhere in the universe. AG

No.  It's just something that can be used as a reference, as could any other frame in inertial motion.  And it's not even a perfect reference since some parts move relative to others.

Brent

I didn't think it was a problem for SR since it's not the luminiferous ether which was thought to be the only frame in which light speed was a constant. I gave the problem to Quentin as an exercise to take his mind off irrelevancies. AG 

[Alan Grayson]

On Sunday, December 29, 2024 at 3:01:11 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:

On 12/29/2024 2:03 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDqUbBYpB_k#:~:text=from%20the%20car's%20reference%20rate%20however%20the,will%20get%20smashed%20by%20the%20garage%20doors.&text=in%20order%20to%20find%20out%20we%20must,use%20our%20friends%20the%20lorentz%20transformation%20equations.

They are just calculating the position of the ends of the car in the garage frame so it it is contracted.

Brent

But at the very end, the fellow says the car also fits in garage from the pov of car frame, but the sound was bad so I couldn't get how he reached this conclusion. You, OTOH, denied an objective reality, which I take to mean the frames can and do disagree about fitting, so I don't see this as a resolution of the paradox, but rather just a restating of it. I have a totally different take on the problem; rather, similar to the TP, the frames are definitely not equivalent since we can easily see that one is moving, and the other, the garage, is stationary (by looking at the background of each frame!), so if you apply length contraction from the pov of the car frame, the entire universe is contracting, not just the garage. What follows from this might be interesting. In any event, what exactly do you mean by no objective reality? Are you just restating the original claim of the frames disagreeing? AG  

[Alan Grayson]

On Thursday, January 2, 2025 at 11:25:00 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:

On 1/2/2025 9:06 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Thursday, January 2, 2025 at 8:56:51 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:

There's nothing "absolute" about the CMB.  It's just a widely available common reference.  The same way we often use the Earth as a reference.  The laws of physics are the same when moving inertially relative to the CMB as relative to the Earth or Moon.

Brent

 

What does "absolute" mean?

It would mean that the laws of physics were special in some sense, e.g. took a special form, in an absolutely stationary state.

It sure seems as absolute as anyone can imagine; the same everywhere in the universe. AG

No.  It's just something that can be used as a reference, as could any other frame in inertial motion.  And it's not even a perfect reference since some parts move relative to others.

Brent

Some parts actually moving relative to other parts? I never heard that claimed. Are you referring to the tiny temperature variations which have been measured? AG 

[Alan Grayson]

On Thursday, January 2, 2025 at 11:37:05 PM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote:

On Thursday, January 2, 2025 at 11:25:00 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:

On 1/2/2025 9:06 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Thursday, January 2, 2025 at 8:56:51 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:

There's nothing "absolute" about the CMB.  It's just a widely available common reference.  The same way we often use the Earth as a reference.  The laws of physics are the same when moving inertially relative to the CMB as relative to the Earth or Moon.

Brent

 

What does "absolute" mean?

It would mean that the laws of physics were special in some sense, e.g. took a special form, in an absolutely stationary state.

It sure seems as absolute as anyone can imagine; the same everywhere in the universe. AG

No.  It's just something that can be used as a reference, as could any other frame in inertial motion.  And it's not even a perfect reference since some parts move relative to others.

Brent

I didn't think it was a problem for SR since it's not the luminiferous ether which was thought to be the only frame in which light speed was a constant. I gave the problem to Quentin as an exercise to take his mind off irrelevancies. AG 

I meant the only frame in which the SoL is c. In other frames, the SoL was proposed to be slower than c depending on the speed of the frame wrt the ether (where the ether was assumed to be at rest, and which defined absolute rest). AG 

[John Clark]

On Fri, Jan 3, 2025 at 12:06 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

 

> What does "absolute" mean?

What does "mean" mean?  

 

> It sure seems as absolute as anyone can imagine; the same everywhere in the universe. AG 

But the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation does NOT look the same to everyone, if you're moving with respect to it, as we here on earth are, it will look bluer in one direction and redder in the opposite direction. And it's not just space, the CMBR is not constant with respect to time either, in the past it was bluer and in the future it will be redder. The speed of light is absolute, but the CMBR is not.

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

bin

 

[Alan Grayson]

How about telling me something I don't know? Did you miss my comment that when it's measured, account has to be taken for the Earth's or the measuring satellite's motion through it? And of course, its temperature has been decreasing through the eons, which I didn't mention, now 2.7 degrees Kelvin. AG  

[Alan Grayson]

On Monday, December 30, 2024 at 1:24:50 PM UTC-7 Jesse Mazer wrote:

On Sun, Dec 29, 2024 at 5:10 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sunday, December 29, 2024 at 3:01:11 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:

On 12/29/2024 2:03 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDqUbBYpB_k#:~:text=from%20the%20car's%20reference%20rate%20however%20the,will%20get%20smashed%20by%20the%20garage%20doors.&text=in%20order%20to%20find%20out%20we%20must,use%20our%20friends%20the%20lorentz%20transformation%20equations.

They are just calculating the position of the ends of the car in the garage frame so it it is contracted.

Brent

Does it show the car fits from the car frame, which is the claim? Maybe this video is better. AG

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HtKe9POc_Q

Do you watch these videos all the way through before posting links? In this one he says at 4:35 that "the solution to our paradox" is that while the doors are able to close simultaneously in the barn's frame with the pole inside, in the pole's frame the door closings are not simultaneous. After actually calculating the times in the pole frame using the LT, he says at 6:45 "Just think about what this means: the time that the back door closes is significantly before the front door closes. In other words, as the barn is moving towards the pole, the back door closes momentarily and then opens up immediately after. And when the back of the pole enters the barn the front door closes. So the closing of the doors that occurred simultaneously in one frame of reference does not occur simultaneously in the other frame of reference, and our paradox is resolved."

Jesse 

While it's obvious that the frames disagree on simultaneity, I don't understand why this FACT, which I've never disputed, resolves the paradox. No one has explained this to my satisfaction. Moreover, even supposing it's true, meaning the car doesn't fit from the pov of the car frame, it just reasserts the paradox. OR, if it denies the paradox by claiming the car does fit from the pov of car frame, how does this interpretation supercede the fact that the LT clearly mplies the car doesn't fit from the pov of the car's frame (since the width of the garage can be made arbitrarily short using the LT, while the car's length remains unchanged)? I notice that in Quentin's summary explanation, he affirms the disagreement of simultaneity, but still concludes the car cannot fit from the pov of the car's frame; so, in effect, he just restates the paradox. I'm not entirely sure, but I think Brent does the same with his plots. I am quite willing to admit I have been mistaken and likely annoying to some in pursuing this issue, but the analyses presented fail to unambiguously link the simultaneity issue, to whether the car fits in garage from the pov of car frame, or not. If it does fit, what's the basis and rationale for simply ignoring what the LT clearly implies wrt the car frame? Or if not, if it doesn't fit, how is this different from simply restating the paradox? TY, AG

 

[Alan Grayson]

To paraphrase the famous words of a Mexican bandit; we don't need no stinkin' doors (on the garage). Clearly, since all clocks in any given frame are synchronized, the readings on clocks which are synchronized in the garage frame for a car perfectly fitting, or not, are not synchronized in the car frame. So, if the conclusion concerning disagreement of synchronization of any two synchronized clocks in garage frame, when compared to the transformed events in the car frame, yields the same result as invoking length contraction of the garage using the LT from the pov of the car frame, at least the results of length contraction using the LT, and disagreement of simultaneity, are not in conflict. But how this resolves the paradox has not been adequately argued. That is, applying the disagreement of synchronization, we reach the same conclusion as using length contraction that allegedly caused the paradox in the first place, and adds nothing to solving it. To summarize, the inclusion of doors on the garage proves nothing and is unnecessary, and applying the disagreement of simultaneity does nothing more than to restate the paradox. AG

 

[Alan Grayson]

The simplest way to look at it is this; remove the garage doors, assume garage open at both ends, assume a perfect fit of car in garage frame, and use the front and back ends of car as the pair of simultaneous events in garage frame. Then note that they're not simultaneous in car's frame, and somehow infer (I don't know how) that the car will not fit in garage from pov of car's frame. Then falsely declare that the paradox has been solved, when in fact all that's been done is to get the SAME result when using length contraction from the pov of car's frame! This is expected since length contraction and failure of simultaneity both follow from the LT, so their results should be the same. But nothing's gained. It's just a restatement of the paradox. QED, AG 

[Alan Grayson]

Brent; with reference to my last comment above, is this what you did with your plots, and if not,  how does it differ? TY, AG