Recent content by Roberto Pavani

It seems to me that expansion alone does not necessarily prevent light from eventually reaching us. For example, consider an expanding universe with scale factor ##a(t)=t\log t##. This is still an accelerating expansion because ##a''(t)=\frac{1}{t}>0##. However, ##\int^\infty...

As a humble engineer, I think there's both a counting bias and a decimal bias here. We are taught to think of numbers mainly as counts of objects, and later as decimal expansions, so division tends to be associated with splitting things into a whole number of groups. But division by a real...

Thank you for posting this. My reading may be incomplete, but I see it primarily as a derivation of the Einstein equations from information-theoretic considerations, rather than a derivation of spacetime itself. The framework seems to start from a setting where local horizons, causal structure...

I'll try to answer as best I can. For the first part, the "missing ω" is effectively hidden inside the definition of q(t). In the quantized theory, ## q=\sqrt{\frac{\hbar}{2\omega}}(a+a^\dagger), ## so q already contains a factor ##1/\sqrt{\omega}##. For the second part, it seems to me that...

If protected by everything else but only exposed do "near zero pression": https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sojuz_11

Thank you, this is very helpful. I agree that for p = 1/2, branch counting and Born Rule coincide. I note that with p = 1/2, the "set of measure zero" are the extremes (all-0 and all-1 sequences). But for p ≠ 1/2, Shannon's AEP tells us the scenarios invert: with branch counting, it is the...

Thank you for suggesting I look at the math. Revisiting the thread and PeroK's comment #10, it occurred to me that this might connect to information theory. So I did some calculations (possibly wrong, I studied Shannon 40 years ago, so please correct me if needed). For a process with ##p...

Thank you, I'll study the math and will do some simulations with qiskit. I appreciate everyone's patience with my questions.

Thank you for clarifying that it is (b). I accept the correction on EPR. But I still have a question about the mechanism in (b): you said "the wave function already contains all outcomes and correlations, there is nothing to decide." If everything was already there before the measurement, what...

Let me clarify: either (a) the outcome was already assigned to each branch before measurement; natural, but operationally a hidden variable; (b) the branches form at measurement and "decide" their outcomes at that moment, correlated with each other (one gets 0 because the other gets 1). In case...

Do you mean no from the perspective of an observer inside a branch or from an "ideal global observer" "outside" the branches ?

If nothing in the theory determines which branch you end up in, yet you end up in one, isn't that precisely the definition of "incomplete" in the EPR sense?

Agreed from the global perspective (external observer with "potential outcomes"). But we are always observers inside one branch, and from that perspective, it is operationally indistinguishable from a hidden variable. Note: "potential outcomes" allows Kolmogorov (mutually exclusive events →...

To clarify my earlier question: I was referring to the perspective of an observer inside one branch. From their view, the outcome was fixed at preparation and revealed at measurement, operationally indistinguishable from a hidden variable. Conversely, from a hypothetical "outside" perspective...

Thanks for the clarifications. If I have understood, the wavefunction already "knew" at preparation time that only two outcomes were possible. That information was fixed before measurement and inaccessible until measurement. That is an hidden information aka hidden variable ?