I tend to just avoid identity fetishes, symmetry fetishes, and structural fetishes. Structural fetishes bite me from time to time but only when I'm feeling extra geeky and I'm trying to reduce everything down to Jack's magic bean.
Probability and provability are not one and the same.
The dependency of both collapse and many world on the design of the experiment makes me very fidgetty. Also the fact that QM keeps dodging the question of what goes on at the filter/splitter/polarizer bugs the bejeezus out of me. You would think one the multilapse twin theories could create the probabilities from subspaces existing at the decision boundary. That would impress me.
I still haven't heard why your counterpart has to be you. Why not one of the rats of NIMH?
And since there are multiple entanglements wouldn't it be necessary to make every part, the polarizer, the detector, and the photon superpose?
I always try to attack a problem from where it tickles. Can a macromechanical system be built such that without any modification of the photon substitute or the polarizer substitute the results would match the micro scale results?
If so then just shine a light on that sucker while it does its business.
I've come to the conclusion that:
#1 the use of amplitudes and complex numbers is really an unholy marriage between logic and arithmetic. The structure of multiplying by imaginary numbers and adding resembles logical arguments rather than a mysterious quantum recipe.
#2 the use of complex numbers implies the encoding of two interdependent variables into one construct like the way you can replace i with t in RC circuit equations. Soon as you do that you get a time dependent value for the voltage.
i by definition when squared transforms one variable (or member of a vector/quaternion/octonion) into its neighboring term without the usual fuss of inverting equations. just square and subtract or reduce to restore the form you are seeking.
I am here to report that the reasons QM and GR don't like each other are: Short answer: they are competing with each other
Long answer: There is a term that appears in perhaps different forms in both sets of equations that is counted twice. This possibly involves a factor that one of them is multiplied by. That factor may be as Psy-Kosh said a question of flat space versus curved space.
The existence of that factor prevents cancellation or some other thing which gives us infinities.
First find that term and the factor and eliminate them from the equations. Recalculate the constants so that it is no longer necessary. Next make sure the constants are the same over both theories. Combine the final shape of both theories. The next step is critical:
If you still get infinities, make them go away. Relate the way you made them go away to that term and factor.
Centrifugal is running away from the center. Centripetal is the wrong name for it. It's just the instantaneous tangent force.
Mach is wrong because physics only obeys instantaneous velocity. Changes in velocity produces/implies forces. Acceleration (rotation) causes all sorts of funk. Acceleration that isn't a rotation could work alright.
The only way you could argue is in a perpendicular way to Einstein. It is true that were the center of rotation the Earth, then the Universe rotating around the Earth (Earth included by its own rotation), then if you were the only one not cosmically superglued to the Universe then it's no different from you going for a run around the Earth.
EXCEPT... if the universe and Earth were rotating, you wouldn't need to move your legs while the Earth slipped by right under you.
Einstein was able to arrive at all that because he submitted his own thinking to serious constraints. He never invented new things (multilapse theory worldpretation) but actually destroyed them.
What I don't buy from his arguments though is that somehow gravitational waves would accelerate you. The universe is already accelerating, there is only the need for the waves to appear to main relativity. They don't need to be the cause of acceleration, only if you assume the universe is not accelerating.
Of course there's also the question of other reference points like looking at the stars and how they behave, but that would be too anti-dialectical for the last 300 years of philosophysical thought.
A rising sun might increase the data pointing to the provability that it will rise tomorrow, but the probability remains the same.
The discovery that the Earth rotates, easily done by studying the stars from two different places, would dramatically send the probability to 100% because the provability went there first.
So if you want to know about the sun rise you'll have to study the stars first. At night. It's like trying to figure out why ice melts without having any source of heat.
Stop with the dialectics. Try three not two not one and not zero.
Live in your own world. Sure except when I need the MWI Spaghetti Monster to get the opposite of my result.
Collapse/MWI are the new wave/particle duality. The metaphysical cube fell over and rotated 90 degrees. Collapse/MWI only looks different because the cube looks unchanged.
A superposition doesn't imply that the simpler component waveforms exist. It can also mean you drove the speakers to eleven, reached the limit the fabric of spacetime could handle, and are receiving distortion.
Oh and if in this many world interpretation photons would have to appear opposite to what is detected in our world, then when the experiment is over and the experimenters leave in opposite directions, does that mean the experimenters on the other side continuously crash into each other.
Both collapse and MWI have a it happens for an instant quality. As soon as the experiment is over they go back into the box like the Rosicrucians do with God's angels.
Wait it gets better. If there is a probability of your mothers getting pregnant here should there not be the opposite effect such that your double couldn't have been born?
Since both you and he are around that means the other world only begins with the original photons flying apart.
MWI has both local extent, good, and a divergent local behavior at every point in space, pathological. It requires a disjunction between neighborhood elements since the results have to be complementary. The fabric of complementary MWI layers have an increasing tendency to explode the minute something happens in their partner. Which would suggest in fact that collapse is the true picture, but we already know it's a collapse of a description not the event. This is a bit like how water waves travel but no water molecule actually goes beyond the next crest. The collapse is a figment and MWI is unstable. My God what have we done to reason?
Spooky correlations between separate photons were demonstrated in an experiment at the Royal Signals and Radar Establishment in England. In this simplified depiction, a down-converter sends pairs of photons in opposite directions. Each photon passes through a separate two-slit apparatus and is directed by mirrors to a detector. Because the detectors cannot distinguish which slit a photon passes through each photon goes both ways generating an interference pattern.... Yet each photon's momentum is also correlated with its partner's. A measurement showing a photon going through the upper left slit would instantaneously force its distant partner to go
I'm so glad that paper says measurement is entanglement because what I've been thinking is that consecutive photons, in a dimmed to one photon at a time two-slit experiment, are the ones interfering not the photon interfering with itself.
Also everything so far from this series says that polarization also determines the slit that is chosen.
What would happen if you had three sources on a rotating platform each taking turns firing at the two slits?
I tend to just avoid identity fetishes, symmetry fetishes, and structural fetishes. Structural fetishes bite me from time to time but only when I'm feeling extra geeky and I'm trying to reduce everything down to Jack's magic bean.
Probability and provability are not one and the same.
The dependency of both collapse and many world on the design of the experiment makes me very fidgetty. Also the fact that QM keeps dodging the question of what goes on at the filter/splitter/polarizer bugs the bejeezus out of me. You would think one the multilapse twin theories could create the probabilities from subspaces existing at the decision boundary. That would impress me.
I still haven't heard why your counterpart has to be you. Why not one of the rats of NIMH?
And since there are multiple entanglements wouldn't it be necessary to make every part, the polarizer, the detector, and the photon superpose?
I always try to attack a problem from where it tickles. Can a macromechanical system be built such that without any modification of the photon substitute or the polarizer substitute the results would match the micro scale results?
If so then just shine a light on that sucker while it does its business.
I've come to the conclusion that:
#1 the use of amplitudes and complex numbers is really an unholy marriage between logic and arithmetic. The structure of multiplying by imaginary numbers and adding resembles logical arguments rather than a mysterious quantum recipe.
#2 the use of complex numbers implies the encoding of two interdependent variables into one construct like the way you can replace i with t in RC circuit equations. Soon as you do that you get a time dependent value for the voltage.
i by definition when squared transforms one variable (or member of a vector/quaternion/octonion) into its neighboring term without the usual fuss of inverting equations. just square and subtract or reduce to restore the form you are seeking.