A puzzle for the SRians
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: EXPERIMENTAL CONFIRMATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY
Next: A new suggestion, about the new big linear accelerator that is now being designed!!
From: PD on 27 Jul 2010 10:58 On Jul 27, 9:25 am, Hayek <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote: > 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. I do think it's worth starting that discussion again. There is a DISTINCT difference between ftl communication and quantum entanglement. FTL communication in a two-particle system DEMANDS the principle of locality, which says that two particles in a state are separable in their properties and that any change in one particle cannot influence the state of the other particle except for a signal transmission from one to the other. An Aspect-like result would then imply FTL communication. Quantum entanglement in a two-particle system DISAVOWS the principle of locality, and says that there things as SINGLE quantum state with two particles, so that what is measured are not the properties of independent particles but of the single STATE. In such case, there is no FTL communication implied whatsoever. The hyperbolic structure of spacetime, which by the way has enormous implications which all agree with experiment, rules out FTL. Furthermore, Bell's theorem gives a *quantifiable* measurement in Aspect-like experiments (beyond the simple correlation you mention) that tests whether there is a hidden local variable in play. The measured results show that quantum mechanics is favored over local hidden variable theories of just about any class. > > 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. No. Rods do not shrink because of light communication. You can replicate the results of relativity without relying on light for the communication at all, or at best in a secondary way where it could not influence the results in the same way. > > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Hayek on 27 Jul 2010 11:03 Daryl McCullough wrote: > 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. You mean "useful communication for us". But the polarization of the photon gets communicated. I asked not to start that discussion again. > >> 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. In your interpretation of "time" maybe, but not in mine. That is why it is important to have a correct knowledge of time. > 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. What makes you say that ? In my interpretation of time, the past no longer exists, so I do not see how that would be accomplished. 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 11:18 Daryl McCullough wrote: > 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". In the latest Now, every object has a velocity, setting direction and speed. Caused by inertia. I suppose you could say that "time is a function of change of position". If this change of position is hindered by greater inertia, then time slows. Test it with chemistry : lower the speed of the molecules (by lowering temperature) and it takes longer for the specific reaction to complete or reach equilibrium. Note that you could also lower the speed by increasing inertia. "Thus, the task is, not so much to see what no one has yet seen; but to think what nobody has yet thought, about that which everybody sees." --Erwin Schr�dinger You know that in chemistry lowering temperature lengthens reaction time, now apply David Hume's principles and see. Uwe Hayek. > >> 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 > -- 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 11:38 PD wrote: > 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. So you are certain that under uncertainty c always hold as a maximum. Then it is not so uncertain anymore. I differ. What you cannot measure can have any speed. > There is indeed evidence for lack of strict > time-ordering, but that is different than ftl > communication. You *assume* c=max, then continue to conclude it is about time ordering, or some even say about multiple universes. I do not assume that, I say that QM is not local, so I do not have any problem about time ordering or multiverses, but only a problem with c=max. Dropping c as max is to me easier than time travel or multiple universes. But anyway, prove me time travel or show me a parallel universe, and I will believe you. I will show you an example of c being greater dan cmax : Look horizontally, see light travel at c. Look one meter higher and see light travel at more than you first c. Because you are one meter up in the gravitational field of the Earth. Now suppose there exist a zone were all the gravitation of the universe has no influence. Compared to our c, that c would be infinite. I claim that uncertainty does just that, there is the zone of no gravitational field, which I prefer to call inertial field (actually gravitation is the gradient of the IF). Quantum computing claims to eventually have instantaneous results, how will they do that without exceeding c ? > 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. What have we figured out about time then ? 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 11:54
PD wrote: > On Jul 27, 9:25 am, Hayek <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> > wrote: >> 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. > > I do think it's worth starting that discussion again. > > > > > There is a DISTINCT difference between ftl > communication and quantum entanglement. > > FTL communication in a two-particle system DEMANDS > the principle of locality, which says that two > particles in a state are separable in their > properties and that any change in one particle cannot > influence the state of the other particle except for > a signal transmission from one to the other. An > Aspect-like result would then imply FTL > communication. Exactly. And the result *were* Aspect like, and not Bell-like. [..] > The hyperbolic structure of spacetime, which by the > way has enormous implications which all agree with > experiment, rules out FTL. But the whole of spacetime does not mention uncertainty, nor any other qm effect. [..] >> 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. > > No. Rods do not shrink because of light > communication. I did not say that. Why do you always exploit semantics to disprove something that is not there? A conversation requires intelligence on both sides. Try reading the sentence in the following way : (Time would still dilate, rods shrink ) AND (even RoS would still apply if you only used light as communication) I did not say that time dilates and rod shrink because of light communication, I meant that part only for RoS. > [..] 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. |