Recent content by jbergman

Just to be clear the Cauchy Stress tensor is actually a ##(1,1)## tensor so ## T: V\times V^* \to \mathbb R##. So no isomorphism is needed at all. I don't believe this is quite true. If you scale your normal vector instead of getting the Traction vector for a plane of unit area you get it for a...

I want to elaborate on my previous post. Imagine the game is changed. You have three doors, one, with a car behind it. Now you can either choose to look behind 2 doors or just 1. Obviously everyone will look behind 2. This is identical to the Month Hall problem! For example, if you would pick...

It's really simple. Would you rather get to pick 2 doors or 1. By switching you are essentially getting to look behind the two doors you originally didn't pick. So the strategy should be pick the one door you don't think the car is behind and switch to the other 2 doors.

There are critiques of this argument similar to this, see https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0312058?hl=en-US . Not sure how accepted Zurek's arguments are.

This Zurek paper explains in more detail how you get multiple different decoherent branches, https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0405161 . The argument is too complicated for me to reproduce it here without spending more time. But I think the essence is that whenever you do an experiment say measure...

Yes, I guess that's true. Now, I think you need some preferred basis of some kind.

Two branches are considered distinct if they are decohered. Do you understand that concept? Not sure I can explain it in a few words but essentially branches are distinct when they become entangled with a system with a large number of particles that it is essentially irreversible, i.e., the...

I haven't had a chance to reread this in detail but I believe this paper by Zurek discusses it, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.71.052105

This paper by Zurek may be a better reference. He discusses orthogonal microstates, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.71.052105

I will try to reply when I have more time later today.

Let's forget about a sequence coin flips. If you have a quantum coin with a probability of 1/3 and perform a single experiment Carroll and Zurek both suggest that you don't just get two worlds after the experiment. Instead you would end up with some large number with the fraction of worlds with...

To answer this specific question. I think where your assumptions are breaking down is that there is only one world for each outcome. This is discussed in Carroll's paper he actually assumes that you can thousands of worlds per coin flip so that you can approximate any rational number?

I have to think about this more. The sphere is an interesting case.

It just means you can form a basis of linear independent non-zero vector fields such that at each point the vector fields form a full basis for the tangent space. It's more general than a coordinate patch for example with the circle you have a canonical vector fields tangent to it but you can't...

Well, this type of thinking doesn't quite work because you also have a physical model like for a classical coin toss. We don't always get an even number of heads as tails but with enough trials the number becomes small where the deviations from it. But with MWI you end up with world counts that...