Recent content by Thor Jackson

Thanks — that’s a good clarification about how MWI treats the dynamics.I agree that in Everettian QM the evolution is always unitary and there is no literal “transition” where the Schrödinger equation stops. But even in MWI, the appearance of a transition still follows a very specific...

I get that the formalism works that way — that part isn’t in dispute.What I’m trying to get at is something slightly different. If the ordering were just a matter of “that’s how we do the calculation,” then different interpretations might rearrange the sequence or treat the steps as...

Thanks — that’s a fair clarification. I agree that a disk in uniform rotation can satisfy Born rigidity; the Langevin congruence is the standard example, and nothing in my earlier comment was meant to dispute that kinematically. The point I was trying to get at is that once you go beyond the...

Thanks — that helps clarify the interpretational landscape.Let me try to sharpen the question a bit, because I’m not really asking why collapse is needed for predictions, but why the sequence of processes in QM always seems to follow the same structural order, regardless of interpretation. Even...

The maths of your integral is fine — what’s breaking is the physical model you’re feeding into it. You’ve assumed: a rigid disc uniform mass density in the lab/COM frame a single angular velocity ω all the way out to the rim, even as v→c All three of those are incompatible with special...

Quantum mechanics uses two very different kinds of evolution: smooth, unitary evolution under the Schrödinger equation non‑unitary state change during measurement What I’m trying to understand is whether this split is just a feature of how we describe QM, or whether the theory itself enforces...

I think I finally understand the distinction. GR seems to separate two very different kinds of structural behavior: (1) Local evolution under accumulating constraints This is the collapse arc: energy conditions → trapped surfaces → focusing → geodesic incompleteness.Each step intensifies the...

Thanks — I think I understand the taxonomy now.What I’m still curious about is the reason GR ends up with this particular division of concepts. In collapse scenarios, the ingredients form a chain where each step intensifies the next.In global structure questions, the tools are independent of...

Thanks — I think I finally see the distinction more clearly. Let me try to articulate it in a way that checks my understanding. It seems like GR contains two very different kinds of structural questions: (1) Evolution under intensifying constraints This is the collapse arc:energy conditions →...

Thanks — I see why that phrasing raised a red flag. I’m not trying to reintroduce the idea that maximal extensions are “post‑singularity” or part of a temporal sequence. I agree with what you said earlier: maximal analytic extensions are not continuations past a singularity, and they aren’t a...

Thanks, that’s a fair point — I see that I’ve been a bit sloppy in how I grouped things, and that’s part of what I’m trying to get clearer about. On the first part: you’re right that in both Wald and MTW, singularity formation (in the sense of geodesic incompleteness) is not treated as...

Thanks — that’s a good clarification. I didn’t mean to imply that the “original coordinate patch” was somehow privileged; only that many presentations introduce the spacetime in a chart that doesn’t cover the full analytic extension. Your point about Kruskal (and similar global charts in other...

Thanks — that helps clarify how the literature separates the topics. One thing I’m still trying to understand is whether the separation between “collapse” and “maximal extensions” is purely organizational, or whether it reflects a deeper conceptual boundary. In other words, when we look at the...

Thanks — that helps clarify how you’re using the term. When you say that all of those steps fall under “collapse,” I want to make sure I’m understanding the scope correctly. In the GR literature, “collapse” often refers to the physical process leading to trapped surfaces and curvature growth...

Thanks, that’s a fair question. For Wald and MTW, I would say the following. Wald In Wald, the pieces I listed are clearly logically connected, but they’re not packaged under a single explicit heading: Conditions for collapse / trapped surfaces / singularity theorems These show up together...