<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CA+BCJUh_y1hPR0agw3vJ-WQoHy=eKDbZTEP9jC5h5mc3DpOCdQ@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Oct 14, 2025 at
12:00 PM spike jones via extropy-chat <<a
href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: extropy-chat <<a
href="mailto:extropy-chat-bounces@lists.extropy.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">extropy-chat-bounces@lists.extropy.org</a>>
On Behalf Of Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat<br>
Subject: Re: [ExI] Google’s Willow Quantum Chip: Proof of
the Multiverse?<br>
<br>
On 14/10/2025 04:31, Adrian Tymes wrote:<br>
>>... The AI explanation failed to address the
question. Under MWI, the <br>
> worlds are separate after splitting...<br>
<br>
>...I don't claim to really understand this whole thing,
but I was wondering about how a half-silvered mirror can
create two photons without violating at least one
conservation law...Not that I've ever understood what
'entanglement' actually means anyway... Another thing that
makes no sense to me is ...<br>
--<br>
Ben<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
<br>
<br>
Ben, it has long been known that struggling too hard to make
sense of quantum mechanics can cause brain injuries. That's
why we engineers leave that to the physicists: trained
mental athletes they are. They do their mental stunts with
a sincere warning Don't try this at home, engineers. We're
trained experts.<br>
<br>
Well OK then. We engineers learn how to use the equations
to make stuff out of a phenomenon we don't understand, the
physicists will struggle to understand something they aren't
making stuff outta, and all is well.<br>
<br>
But do let me leave you with a fun thought experiment
please, knowing it comes from a feller who doesn't
understand QM after a lifetime of puzzling about it.<br>
<br>
Imagine the 3D projection of the multidimensional manifold
which is spacetime, indulging me on this being as I am a 3D
critter, so cut me some 3D slack analogous to how the sphere
was indulgent with A Square in Flatland.<br>
<br>
Imagine all the everything is at a point, </blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Well, that always puzzled me. If the smallest volume that can exist
is a cubic planck length, how can everything be at a point? It would
have to be in a volume of at least one cubic planck length. Somehow.
If every single bit of 'everything' was superimposed on every single
other bit of it. Which I understood to be impossible for a number of
reasons. At least a couple of reasons (Exclusion principle and
Uncertainty principle). Yeah, now I suppose that, after learning
that conservation laws are a lie, we will find out that the
exclusion and uncertainty principles are not true as well.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CA+BCJUh_y1hPR0agw3vJ-WQoHy=eKDbZTEP9jC5h5mc3DpOCdQ@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">and
for some unknown reason it exploded and the stuff on the
surface of the resulting 3D sphere was moving at the speed
of light. This is the engineer's 3D view (kinda) of the Big
Bang and ja we know it really doesn't work that way, but
Sphere me please for this thought experiment.<br>
<br>
Now imagine the universe is closed (because anything else is
just too sad) and the expansion of the universe gradually
slows under its own gravity, still the speed of light out
there but it gradually slows and stops, then starts
contracting again (Shane! Come back, Shane!) and ja I know
the photons didn't actually stop, they turned (somehow) in
4D space) but thought experiment: imagine some radius, say
33 GLY if you like the latest number I see tossed about with
these guys teasing us that the universe is closed.<br>
<br>
Now... imagine away all quantum states except position.
Look only at position in 3 space since we are going to
imagine motion and time are illusions that we lowly 3D
things experience, so just imagine a 3D sphere with a bunch
of particles in it with a radius of 33 gigglies. <br>
<br>
How many different configurations of particles are there? <br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I'd say that depends on how many different types of particles. <br>
If there was just one (electrons, say) there will only be one
configuration, because they are all identical. Swap two electrons
and the configuration remains the same.<br>
If there are two or more, it will depend on their proportion as well
as the total numbers of particles.<br>
I'm sure there's some formula that can give the total number of
configurations when you give it the total number of different types
of particles and their proportions, as well as the things you've
mentioned.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CA+BCJUh_y1hPR0agw3vJ-WQoHy=eKDbZTEP9jC5h5mc3DpOCdQ@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
Assumptions: every particle must occupy a cubic (or
spherical diameter if you prefer) Planck length (diameter or
side length 1.6E-35 m) in a sphere radius 33 GLY. <br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I think that assumption has to be wrong. Do we know of any particles
that small? Electrons, if they are not dimensionless points (in
which case the assumption is meaningless), or have an effective
diameter of about 2.8E-15 m, but it varies with the energy they
have.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CA+BCJUh_y1hPR0agw3vJ-WQoHy=eKDbZTEP9jC5h5mc3DpOCdQ@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
How many configurations possible.<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
There's not enough information to tell.<br>
How many particles are there?<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CA+BCJUh_y1hPR0agw3vJ-WQoHy=eKDbZTEP9jC5h5mc3DpOCdQ@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
Doing the calcs to one sig fig gives me about
(10^180)!/(10^80)!<br>
<br>
Somewhere around there. OK you fellers who are hot with
your gamma functions, I will settle for an estimate of that
number to a few orders of magnitude between friends (John
are you up to speed on that? Other math/physics jockeys?
(Help us Zaiboc Ben Kenobi, you're our only hope (or one of
about five only hopes.)) John, Ben, others, please estimate
that expression (using gamma or your favorite math trick) or
offer your own model.<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Ha, I think you have me confused with someone who can do maths. I'm
a total duffer at maths, it makes no sense to me. To be honest, I
don't really even understand division, and negative numbers make my
head hurt. I suspect I may have the numeric equivalent of dyslexia.<br>
I can usually cope with addition and multiplication, and that's
about it. (And if you're thinking I forgot about subtraction, I
didn't). So I'm afraid you only have about four only hopes. (Sorry
about removing the only Ben in that list, it kind of spoils your
plea for help).<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CA+BCJUh_y1hPR0agw3vJ-WQoHy=eKDbZTEP9jC5h5mc3DpOCdQ@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
There is a fun part 2 with this thought experiment which I
will cheerfully offer but I want your estimates of
(10^180)!/(10^80)! first please, or offer a
counter-suggestion on how to estimate the number of possible
configurations possible in a stationary 3D sphere of 33 GLY
radius, of the approximate number of cubic Plancks which
will fit inside that 3D sphere. <br>
<br>
This line of thought gets way cool from there, possibly
brain-injuring cool.<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
My brain is already injured, but I presume part 2 will tell us what
the point of all this is, and what it has to do with quantum
mechanics.<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Ben</pre>
</body>
</html>