PeterDonis's latest activity

How are you obtaining this? Based on what math?

On what basis are you making this claim? The "different momentum components" are not observables; they are just a convenient basis in...

If by "see" you mean purely by analyzing the light rays coming from the pendulums and looking at things like angles subtended in your...

As far as I can see, you're not computing anything. You haven't shown any math. You're just waving your hands. At this point I don't...

On what basis are you making this statement?

Even if we grant that things would appear this way to an observer looking only at light signals, this... ...is not correct. Two...

Actually, I was mistaken here; it's a measure of tangential tidal gravity, since the two pendulums are separated tangentially, not radially.

I don't understand this. You can measure dH locally: just put a ruler between the bottom ends of the two pendulums. And I don't see any...

There is no such thing for a black hole. ##r = 0## for a black hole is not a place in space; it's a moment of time. The geometric...

Then you can't get single outcomes. Yes, but using a "reduced state" at all already assumes that you have a single outcome--without...

Not about any personal theory you might have; that's off limits here. You're contradicting yourself. If "a unitary description ceases...

This is only true, as I said, for arrows close enough to the observer. For arrows somewhat further around the photon sphere, the...

Is an approximation to begin with. As I understand it, the approximation requires the particles to be free (so that they can be assigned...

Short answer: no. The things you are vaguely describing all involve a change to the dynamics, making it no longer unitary. Indeed...

Moderator's note: Thread moved to the QM interpretations subforum.