Search results

  1. L

    A Schrodinger's Cat and the thermal interpretation

    My understanding is only very rudimentary, but I come up with similar issues as expressed in this thread with trying to figure TI. This kind of point sounds like something starting conditions could be considered as implicit hidden variables. You could look at TI from the point of view of it...
  2. L

    I The thermal interpretation of quantum physics

    Sorry late reply... That was non sequitur. I prefer to think of expectations values applying to individual measurements myself. However, maybe I was looking at TI too much through the lenses of the Ensemble interpretation. I can see how TI could apply to single measurement results, where on my...
  3. L

    I The thermal interpretation of quantum physics

    From what I can gather as a lay person after a quick glance and mostly guessing what it is about, superficially, the thermal interpretation appears like a redressing of the ensemble interpretation. Measurement seems to be redefined like an ensemble of measurements, so you are no longer...
  4. L

    A Does the MWI require "creation" of multiple worlds?

    I've been curious about a similar question to the OP which this thread has been circling around. I'm quite ignorant compared to most posters here though so please forgive imprecise use of words. (btw, because I always hear comments worlds splitting in MWI, it leads me to believe the worlds...
  5. L

    A Blue-eye paradox

    Well, I have thought it all through from many angles, and I can't see any cracks my self, but I often wast large amounts of time on impossible problems before I really understand exactly why they are impossible. The only way I can see to attack the problem is to try to think of a reason why a...
  6. L

    A Blue-eye paradox

    Yes, thank you, you are probably correct, I what little formal knowledge I have in this area has been long forgotten. Also, I don't think anything else I am saying leads anywhere particularly useful apart from being things my intuition doesn't like. I feel like either the instant application...
  7. L

    A Blue-eye paradox

    The correct number of days after the announcement, Alice no longer believes W2 is possible, but she already new W3 and W4 where not possible. The announcement affects a world that Alice already didn't believe existed, which is odd.
  8. L

    A Blue-eye paradox

    With the above graph, have you thought about worlds where no announcements where made? That question always confuses me, sometimes I think they can be safely ignored, but sometimes I think that has been assumed with out a fool proof justification. I was also considering similar thoughts to what...
  9. L

    A Blue-eye paradox

    I realised I keep confusing my self. I've been suffering a cold, and my ability to think clearly keeps abandoning me, and I have difficult even explaining what I am trying to understand.
  10. L

    A Blue-eye paradox

    What if there was only one blue-eyed monk and the guru didn't speak? Anyway, I think we are going around in circles and I am not sure how to explain my self better then I already have.
  11. L

    A Blue-eye paradox

    Although, I am not sure everybody quite understood the point I was bringing up, I'm pretty comfortable with my understanding of the puzzle and the paradox now. If applying the same inductive logic, the monks may all decide to leave, but if applying detective logic, they may all decide to stay. I...
  12. L

    A Blue-eye paradox

    Ok, I was wondering if that was your intended meaning of M1, M2, but ironically, I couldn't be sure until I got this extra information. I already understand all this, and I think you might be missing the point I am trying to make. Ok, this is where assumption comes in which I can't see the...
  13. L

    A Blue-eye paradox

    I find it very easy to get confused about this problem, however, my first instinct is that this statement is both incorrect and irrelevant. Why wouldn't Monk 1 already know that? And why would that knowledge make any difference? edit: sorry, I apologise if my tone sounded to aggressive
  14. L

    A Blue-eye paradox

    Perhaps I am confused, stupid and ignorant but… I feel like there is flaw in the solution to the problem as posed because the monks must determine what the guru’s behaviour would be in a hypothetical situation which is not observed. I It seems to a hidden assumption which I am confused about...
  15. L

    Can we violate Bell inequalities by giving up CFD?

    I have great difficulty seeing the relevance of counterfactual definiteness. Counterfactual Definiteness regards the results of measurements that are not made, but isn't any bell type experiment about a repetition of, two specially separated measurements that are made. I imagine the way out...
  16. L

    Non-local uncertainty - does it make sense?

    Actually, the funny think is that you can't. Perhaps for Susskind's oversimplified example you can, but a deterministic pseudo-random number generator can't reproduce bells inequalities by local operations on 2 comperters in every possible case, only in special cases, such as the example, or in...
  17. L

    Black Holes What?

    I'm not sure that is quite right. In the frame of a falling object as it cross the horizon, it can be reflecting light. In the frame of the distant observer, you could imagine the object frozen on the horizon reflecting infinitely redshifted light. However, the math at the horizon from the frame...
  18. L

    Why wouldn't black hole singularity evaporate before it can form?

    Really? Sorry, I've lost my patience at this point. Are you serous? Sorry again, I think I will leave the puzzle to you work out the unnecessary assumptions you have made here. I knew I would get picked up on this for my sloppy use of terminology on this one. I am not going to go and re...
  19. L

    Why wouldn't black hole singularity evaporate before it can form?

    I really need to stop posting here... I am using time I don't have... but... If the paper is correct, an in-falling observer sees hawking radiation at the EH, but not inside the EV, then the equivalence theorem would be in trouble since it implies that hawking radiation emanates from the...
  20. L

    Why wouldn't black hole singularity evaporate before it can form?

    I disagree, it see it as a straight forward implication of the math, and the only reasons put forward why it shouldn't be are speculative, or based on misconceptions. You are again talking about hawking radiation that could be observed at infinity, I am not, so I am not against the premiss...
  21. L

    Why wouldn't black hole singularity evaporate before it can form?

    Perhaps we better actually go check the maths I did and see if we can find a flaw. I think these are the most relevant posts, I recommend you take a look. Post 22 Post 30 And the most relevant part of those posts below: My comment about the positive minus infinity thing may have been off the...
  22. L

    Why wouldn't black hole singularity evaporate before it can form?

    Actually, there is a Hamilton animation of a radial dive with 180 degree fish eye on the diagonal, some of what you are seeing in the animation is coming from behind. I don't think the camera is pointed in your direction of motion. It isn't 100% clear if you can see directly behind you or not in...
  23. L

    Why wouldn't black hole singularity evaporate before it can form?

    I don't think I have much trouble visualising these cases, but I think you've made a small error. Light from the horizon at r=2M moving directly outward, will remain at the horizon. Light moving directly inward will appear to as if it came from behind you. (Assuming you are inside the EH in its...
  24. L

    Why wouldn't black hole singularity evaporate before it can form?

    Well, unfortunately, that is probably the best I can do right now, if you find it easier to wave your hands and believe that an observer instantly stops seeing radiation at the moment they cross the horizon while abandoning the equivalence principal rather then then simply assume there is no...
  25. L

    Why wouldn't black hole singularity evaporate before it can form?

    I can't think of a reason why the formulas wouldn't extend beyond the event horizon. I don't know what the difference would be there. They predict a non zero hawking radiation observed by a free faller at the horizon. If it changes in a non-continuous way at the horizon, it would seem to me to...
  26. L

    Why wouldn't black hole singularity evaporate before it can form?

    To be fair, I rephrased my question to make it meaningful, however, I am arguing over semantics now, and your point is understood. Throughout this thread, I have been taking the assumption that any hawking radiation perceived with in the EH, would have no effect on the BH to an outside...
  27. L

    Why wouldn't black hole singularity evaporate before it can form?

    I was extrapolating a formula from one of the following papers. The derivation is earlier in this thread. Whether or not this derivation is valid is a good question, but it all seems perfectly consistent to my naive point of view. It makes sense to me that hawking radiation would be seen by an...
  28. L

    Why wouldn't black hole singularity evaporate before it can form?

    Still, for me, explaining things away by simply saying, that the energy of the BH is not well defined for the in-falling observer isn't very satisfying. I often don't mind a bit of hand waving in an explanation, but in this case, for me, int this case, I'm left wanting a deeper understanding and...
  29. L

    Why wouldn't black hole singularity evaporate before it can form?

    That kind of reasoning is why I included the following. In your example, the energy of the target, in the frame of the projectile could be easily calculated due to relative velocity differences in the flat space time, however, it doesn't seem to be so easy to do the same calculation for an...
Top