tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post5486142309424625337..comments2024-03-18T17:28:44.693-07:00Comments on Rondam Ramblings: Causality and Quantum Mechanics: a Cosmological Kalamity (Part 1 of 2)Ronhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-82915606023284157322017-06-01T15:14:25.304-07:002017-06-01T15:14:25.304-07:00"Causes must precede effects in all reference..."Causes must precede effects in all reference frames." It seems to me that causes must precede effects only iin the reference frame(s) that are constrain a given instance, namely, an instance (or frame(s)) in which the cause is observed to precede the effect,<br />Kennitahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06380513119379953610noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-81186281647388277592017-04-08T20:43:51.163-07:002017-04-08T20:43:51.163-07:00> we cannot ever on the basis of any experiment...> we cannot ever on the basis of any experiment rule out the possibility that the outcome of that experiment has been pre-determined by some cosmic Turing machine computing the digits of pi.<br /><br />Btw, since I've been pointing out what look to me like errors in some of the physics claims made in the argument in this article, I should also say that I still think the statement quoted Peter Donishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09122769947782402203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-12567674070055995592017-04-08T19:12:06.750-07:002017-04-08T19:12:06.750-07:00> it doesn't acquire any additional mass/en...> it doesn't acquire any additional mass/energy<br /><br />If you are talking about the observable universe, yes, it can. Or it can lose it. The former will happen if the universe is radiation or matter dominated, because the Hubble radius will increase faster than the rate at which objects move apart due to expansion; the latter will happen if the universe is dark energy dominated, Peter Donishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09122769947782402203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-81012944931826340262017-04-08T18:09:42.771-07:002017-04-08T18:09:42.771-07:00> But the observable universe gets bigger as th...> But the observable universe gets bigger as the universe gets older.<br /><br />Sure, but it doesn't acquire any additional mass/energy, nor does it acquire any negative entropy. And the fact that it's getting bigger only makes things worse because it means that the mass/energy that is already here is slipping irretrievably out of reach.<br /><br />> There is a caveat to this, Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-9494392454590913962017-04-08T15:19:29.840-07:002017-04-08T15:19:29.840-07:00> at least not in the observable universe
But ...> at least not in the observable universe<br /><br />But the observable universe gets bigger as the universe gets older. If the universe will last for an infinite time, which is what our best current model says, then the observable universe's size could increase without bound.<br /><br />There is a caveat to this, though. If the universe stays dark energy dominated, which our best current Peter Donishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09122769947782402203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-61659578358631209722017-04-08T15:03:35.702-07:002017-04-08T15:03:35.702-07:00@Peter:
> Our current best-fit model is that t...@Peter:<br /><br />> Our current best-fit model is that the universe is infinite and contains an infinite number of particles.<br /><br />Nope, at least not in the observable universe (which is all that matters for the question of doing experiments). The big bang happened a finite amount of time in the past (13.7 billion years) so the observable universe is of finite size. Nothing further Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-87192594519157187102017-04-08T12:37:10.420-07:002017-04-08T12:37:10.420-07:00> the universe is finite. There are a finite n...> the universe is finite. There are a finite number of particles, and there is only a finite amount of time between the Big Bang and the heat death of the universe. Therefore, in the entire lifetime of the universe we can only ever do a finite number of experiments.<br /><br />These claims are not true according to our current best-fit model of the universe. Our current best-fit model is thatPeter Donishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09122769947782402203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-38046650743170243722017-03-30T10:34:40.218-07:002017-03-30T10:34:40.218-07:00Efficient Cause
@Ron
>it is simply not true th...<b>Efficient Cause</b><br /><br />@Ron<br /><i>>it is simply not true that whatever begins to exist has a cause. There are at least two examples in nature of things that begin to exist without causes. Vacuum fluctuations are the spontaneous creation of particles and their associated anti-particles. Normally these just annihilate each other almost immediately after their creation, but in Publiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00647613579979908182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-33827687639521300702017-03-19T13:11:26.497-07:002017-03-19T13:11:26.497-07:00Actually, the moon is demonstrably not there even ...Actually, the moon is demonstrably not there even when you do look. :-)<br />Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-1728484371236531102017-03-19T12:50:24.455-07:002017-03-19T12:50:24.455-07:00Love the QM & religion stuff; looking forward ...Love the QM & religion stuff; looking forward to your part 2.<br /><br />That said, a minor quibble: You recommend Mermin's exposition, but he starts with "<i>We now know that the moon is demonstrably not there when nobody looks.</i>" I <i>hate</i> that kind of misleading, layman "paradox" description of QM. OK, so Mermin was writing in 1981, so maybe I should give Don Geddishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04214642122689048677noreply@blogger.com