0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

... the difference between Bach's quantum compositions (every note is a surprise until you get to the end of the phrase and look back and see the masterful logic) and Mozart's linear inevitability.

I'll have to make a study of Bach versus Mozart and understand what you refer to. Philistine me rarely bothers to note the artist or composer,

An odd interpretation of multiverse, I think. As I see it a multiverse model is one in which what actually happens is the most probable or least energetic of an everexpanding and unobservable infinity of possible outcomes -

The first published MRI image of a human was made in a superconducting 0.1 T magnet (I used to work for the inventor, and I met the patient). There were some systems that used the earth's magnetic field as a polariser but they were never more than curiosities. You need at least 0.2 T to get enough signal/noise ratio to produce a useful image before the patient dies of boredom. All MRI systems use RF energy.And they all use reiterative 3D inverse-space reconstruction algorithms to produce the image because that's the only way you can do it. Whilst the algorithms themselves are fun, proving that a new algorithm is indefinitely stable and uniquely convergent is a mathematical orgasm, way beyond a mere KISS.

So your stance is that perturbation theory has nothing to do with probability amplitude. Interesting.