Prev: EXPERIMENTAL CONFIRMATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY
Next: A new suggestion, about the new big linear accelerator that is now being designed!!
From: Hayek on 27 Jul 2010 10:25
Daryl McCullough wrote:
> Hayek says...
>
>> I find a lot of flaws in these "gedanken". For instance,
>> Einstein assumes that the event only takes place if you
>> see the lightflash of the event in your frame of reference.
>
> He makes no such assumption.
>
>> Light to me, is only an imperfect carrier of
>> information, just as sound is.
>>
>> With instantaneous communication, and a correct
>> definition of time, and there is no such thing anymore
>> as relativity of simultaneity.
>
> That's exactly right. Relativity of simultaneity is
> a consequence of there being an upper bound to communication
> speed. If there is no upper bound, then relativity is wrong.

Brilliant remark.

But suppose that someone finds a way to send
instantaneous messages, by means of Quantum effects.
This is not even far fetched, as the Aspect experiment,
now even some 10 miles apart, indicate that entangled
photons seem to send information about their
polarization across that distance.
But let's not start that discussion again.

Suppose we have instant messaging, what about relativity
would be wrong ? Time would still dilate, rods shrink,
and even RoS would still apply if you only used light as
communication.

Ok, mutual time dilation would have to go, but that was
not of much use anyway, SR would look more like LET, but
what was the difference anyway ? For one there was no
absolute reference, and for the other it was not measurable.

And since instant messaging would be a non-local
phenomenon, it would still hold true that the laws of
physics remain locally the same.

It would be just "a next step" for physics, all the old
physics remaining correct, just in some cases some
blanks were filled in, just as Einstein replaced Newton.

And then you could also usenet-chat with alien morons,
or were we doing that already ?

Uwe Hayek.

--
We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate
inversion : the stage where the government is free to do
anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by
permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of
human history. -- Ayn Rand

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can
prevent the government from wasting the labors of the
people under the pretense of taking care of them. --
Thomas Jefferson.

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of
ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue
is the equal sharing of misery. -- Winston Churchill.
From: Hayek on 27 Jul 2010 10:37
PD wrote:
> On Jul 27, 6:02 am, Hayek <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
>> With instantaneous communication, and a correct
>> definition of time, and there is no such thing anymore
>> as relativity of simultaneity.
>>
>
> I don't know why a definition of time would be more correct

Any definition of time will be welcome. Then we can
argue the pros and cons.

> if you
> presuppose a phenomenon that is specifically and unilaterally excluded
> in our universe.

Hold your horses. Are you certain this does not happen
under uncertainty ?

> It might be conceptually appealing to you, but it
> wouldn't have any bearing on time AS IT APPLIES in nature as we
> observe it.

I beg to differ.

Look at what questions the FQxi (http://www.fqxi.org)
has put forward in order to obtain a grant :

1 Can physics establish or deny the flow of time?


2 If the flow of time is an illusion, how do we explain
this illusion?

3 Are the laws of physics time-symmetric or
time-reversible?
3 If not, how does one explain the time symmetry of some
physical laws and the asymmetry of others?

4What do the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics
(QM) respectively tell us about
 the nature of time and time travel?
5 How do we reconcile their see-mingly inconsistent
conceptions of time?
6 Is the nature of time intrinsically different from
that of space?
7 Can physical time be infinite?
8 Is the universe a static “block” universe?
9 Does the big bang (at least partially) explain the
entropic arrow of time?
10 Is the nature of time intrinsically different from
that of space?
11 Why?
12 Are there many space-time branches or timelines in
addition to our own?
13 Do these theories provide us with inconsistent
con-ceptions of time?
14 If we could experimentally confirm or discard any of
the key specific interpretations of QM or classes of
interpretation (such as collapse accounts), would we
gain insight on the problems of time?
15 Can QM explain the beginning of time?
16 Is space-time itself quantized? If so, what does it
mean?
17 Can we, by way of experiments employing different
reference frames, experimentally confirm the existence
of anything such as the need for preferred foliations,
inconsistent histories, advanced action, evolving
spacetime, etc., that argues against the block-universe
interpretation of relativity theory?
18 Does non-locality in QM give us good reason to
modify relativity?
19 Are there new QM experiments (thought or otherwise)
involving weak values, pre- and post- selection, etc.,
that bear on the problems of time? For example, are
there such experiments that are best interpreted as
requiring “BCQM” or advanced action?
20 Are there any specific accounts of time-symmetric
quantum mechanics, such as truly new time-symmetric
dynamics, that bear on the problems at hand, suggest new
predic-tions, etc.?
21 Is the Everett-Wallace-Saunders interpretation of QM
truly local and consistent with “M4” and “blockworld”?
22 If so, how does this or any other view which takes
the wave function as fundamental (such as GRW) recover
M4 and relativity?
23 How many spatial dimensions are there? Can this
question be resolved empirically or experimentally?
24 Can there be more than one temporal dimension?
25 Is the Tumulka-GRW interpretation truly covariant,
and can it be extended to cases with interactions?
26 Does Bohmian mechanics require a preferred frame, and
if so does that undermine the Bohmian interpretation of
QM or special relativity?
27 How can time be recovered from the timeless
Wheeler-Dewitt equation? Must we modify the equation?
Or replace it altogether?

UNQUOTE


Uwe Hayek.




--
We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate
inversion : the stage where the government is free to do
anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by
permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of
human history. -- Ayn Rand

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can
prevent the government from wasting the labors of the
people under the pretense of taking care of them. --
Thomas Jefferson.

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of
ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue
is the equal sharing of misery. -- Winston Churchill.
From: Daryl McCullough on 27 Jul 2010 10:50
Hayek says...

>But suppose that someone finds a way to send
>instantaneous messages, by means of Quantum effects.

As far as anyone knows, the speed of light is the upper
bound for any transmission of signals. Quantum effects
don't change that.

Sure, it's possible that all our physics is wrong, and
that instantaneous effects are possible. But there is
no reason to believe that.

>This is not even far fetched, as the Aspect experiment,
>now even some 10 miles apart, indicate that entangled
>photons seem to send information about their
>polarization across that distance.

Entanglement does *not* allow faster-than-light communication.

>Suppose we have instant messaging, what about relativity
>would be wrong?

If a message is instantaneous in one frame, then (if
relativity is right) in a different frame, the message
arrives before it is sent.

The theory of relativity, together with the assumption that
instantaneous communication is possible, leads to the conclusion
that it is possible to send a message into one's own past.

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

From: PD on 27 Jul 2010 10:50
On Jul 27, 9:37 am, Hayek <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote:
> PD wrote:
> > On Jul 27, 6:02 am, Hayek <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
> >> With instantaneous communication, and a correct
> >> definition of time, and there is no such thing anymore
> >> as relativity of simultaneity.
>
> > I don't know why a definition of time would be more correct
>
> Any definition of time will be welcome. Then we can
> argue the pros and cons.
>
> > if you
> > presuppose a phenomenon that is specifically and unilaterally excluded
> > in our universe.
>
> Hold your horses. Are you certain this does not happen
> under uncertainty ?

I don't see any evidence whatsoever of ftl communication under any
aspect of quantum mechanics.

There is indeed evidence for lack of strict time-ordering, but that is
different than ftl communication.

Nor did I say that we had time all figured out (see Tegmark's list
below). That doesn't mean that we haven't figured out ANYTHING about
time.

>
> > It might be conceptually appealing to you, but it
> > wouldn't have any bearing on time AS IT APPLIES in nature as we
> > observe it.
>
> I beg to differ.
>
> Look at what questions the FQxi (http://www.fqxi.org)
> has put forward in order to obtain a grant :
>
> 1 Can physics establish or deny the flow of time?
>
> 2 If the flow of time is an illusion, how do we explain
> this illusion?
>
> 3 Are the laws of physics time-symmetric or
> time-reversible?
> 3 If not, how does one explain the time symmetry of some
> physical laws and the asymmetry of others?
>
> 4What do the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics
> (QM) respectively tell us about
>  the nature of time and time travel?
> 5 How do we reconcile their see-mingly inconsistent
> conceptions of time?
> 6 Is the nature of time intrinsically different from
> that of space?
> 7 Can physical time be infinite?
> 8  Is the universe a static “block” universe?
> 9  Does the big bang (at least partially) explain the
> entropic arrow of time?
> 10 Is the nature of time intrinsically different from
> that of space?
> 11 Why?
> 12 Are there many space-time branches or timelines in
> addition to our own?
> 13 Do these theories provide us with inconsistent
> con-ceptions of time?
> 14 If we could experimentally confirm or discard any of
> the key specific interpretations of QM or classes of
> interpretation (such as collapse accounts), would we
> gain insight on the problems of time?
> 15 Can QM explain the beginning of time?
> 16 Is space-time itself quantized? If so, what does it
> mean?
> 17 Can we, by way of experiments employing different
> reference frames, experimentally confirm the existence
> of anything such as the need for preferred foliations,
> inconsistent histories, advanced action, evolving
> spacetime, etc., that argues against the block-universe
> interpretation of relativity theory?
> 18  Does non-locality in QM give us good reason to
> modify relativity?
> 19  Are there new QM experiments (thought or otherwise)
> involving weak values, pre- and post- selection,   etc.,
> that bear on the problems of time? For example, are
> there such experiments that are best interpreted as
> requiring “BCQM” or advanced action?
> 20 Are there any specific accounts of time-symmetric
> quantum mechanics, such as truly new time-symmetric
> dynamics, that bear on the problems at hand, suggest new
> predic-tions, etc.?
> 21 Is the Everett-Wallace-Saunders interpretation of QM
> truly local and consistent with “M4” and “blockworld”?
> 22 If so, how does this or any other view which takes
> the wave function as fundamental (such as GRW) recover
> M4 and relativity?
> 23  How many spatial dimensions are there? Can this
> question be resolved empirically or experimentally?
> 24 Can there be more than one temporal dimension?
> 25  Is the Tumulka-GRW interpretation truly covariant,
> and can it be extended to cases with interactions?
> 26 Does Bohmian mechanics require a preferred frame, and
> if so does that undermine the Bohmian interpretation of
> QM or special relativity?
> 27 How can time be recovered from the timeless
> Wheeler-Dewitt equation?  Must we modify the equation?
> Or replace it altogether?
>
> UNQUOTE
>
> Uwe Hayek.
>
> --
> We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate
> inversion : the stage where the government is free to do
> anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by
> permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of
> human history. -- Ayn Rand
>
> I predict future happiness for Americans if they can
> prevent the government from wasting the labors of the
> people under the pretense of taking care of them. --
> Thomas Jefferson.
>
> Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of
> ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue
> is the equal sharing of misery. -- Winston Churchill.

From: Daryl McCullough on 27 Jul 2010 10:55
Hayek says...

>Then, what is time ?
>
>To me, time emerges from motion.

That doesn't make sense. How do you define "motion"?
I would define motion as "change of position as a function
of time".

>And motion is influenced by inertia. If the inertia is higher
>then the quartz in your clock moves slower. You do not notice it,
>but because at 37 centigrade body temperature, the
>molecules in your body also move slower. I claim that
>the only difference between inertial frames with
>different gamma is the strength of the inertia.

gamma is not associated with an inertial frame, it is
associated with a *pair* of inertial frames. Gamma, like
velocity, is relative.

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Prev: EXPERIMENTAL CONFIRMATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY
Next: A new suggestion, about the new big linear accelerator that is now being designed!!