A puzzle for the SRians
in [Physics]
|
Prev: New data suggest a lighter Higgs
Next:  Making Waves
From: PD on 27 Jul 2010 12:28 On Jul 27, 10:38 am, Hayek <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote: > 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. Are you under the impression that the uncertainty principle means that everything is uncertain? It does not. > > 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. What? No. > 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 ? Again, it helps to know what quantum entanglement MEANS. I noticed that you blew right by my paragraph about that in another post in this thread. > > > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Hayek on 27 Jul 2010 12:42 PD wrote: > On Jul 27, 10:38 am, Hayek <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote: >> 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. > > Are you under the impression that the uncertainty principle means that > everything is uncertain? It does not. > >> 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. > > What? No. > >> 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 ? > > Again, it helps to know what quantum entanglement MEANS. I noticed > that you blew right by my paragraph about that in another post in this > thread. It was not very logical. First you proved my point. Then you said something inconclusive without referring to the outcome of any experiment. Then you said something inconclusive about Bell. I stuck to the first one, that was the only paragraph that was conclusive, and hey, it proved my point. >>> 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 ? And You blew past this one. 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 12:55 PD wrote: > On Jul 27, 10:54 am, Hayek <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> > wrote: >> 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. > > I'm sorry, you may be under some misapprehension > about what Bell's theorem says. Bell's theorem was of > the sort: "If quantum mechanics is right, then you > will see this measurement with quantity X. If local > hidden variables are in play, then you will this same > measurement with quantity Y." And Aspect found that it was X, quantum mechanics was right. As it so happens, I read the story about Bell, and he gambled on hidden variables. >> [..] >> >>> 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. > > And that's just flat wrong. Starting with Dirac, but > certainly including just about any relativistic > quantum field theory you can name (QED, QCD, > electroweak, etc.), there is a full reconciliation of > spacetime geometry with quantum mechanics. You seem unable to make the difference between QFT includes GR or GR includes QFT. I meant that GR does not include QM or QFT at all, yet FTL was "ruled out" before that. The later theory adapted the former, in the limit case. And QFT, as all Quantum descriptions describe the observables only. I think Bohr was right in saying that all measurements are classical. At uncertainty nothing can be measured. If measurements are classical then they must obey GR. > > Just because it did not appear in the FIRST FEW > papers about spacetime does not mean that work has > not been done since then. > >> [..] >> >>>> 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. > > And the same is true for RoS. It is not reliant on > light communication. The first time its plausibility > was explained, that explanation involved light, but > that is incidental. Daryl McCullough has a different opinion on that, which I agree with. ( I first thought it was Sam Wormley, oops, cancelled that message) 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: PD on 27 Jul 2010 13:49 On Jul 27, 11:53 am, Hayek <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote: > PD wrote: > > On Jul 27, 10:54 am, Hayek <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> > > wrote: > >> 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. > > > I'm sorry, you may be under some misapprehension > > about what Bell's theorem says. Bell's theorem was of > > the sort: "If quantum mechanics is right, then you > > will see this measurement with quantity X. If local > > hidden variables are in play, then you will this same > > measurement with quantity Y." > > And Aspect found that it was X, quantum mechanics was > right. As it so happens, I read the story about Bell, > and he gambled on hidden variables. > > >> [..] > > >>> 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. > > > And that's just flat wrong. Starting with Dirac, but > > certainly including just about any relativistic > > quantum field theory you can name (QED, QCD, > > electroweak, etc.), there is a full reconciliation of > > spacetime geometry with quantum mechanics. > > You seem unable to make the difference between QFT > includes GR or GR includes QFT. The difference between SR and GR is flat hyperbolic geometry vs curved hyperbolic geometry. The hyperbolic nature remains, and it is that which prohibits FTL communication. > > I meant that GR does not include QM or QFT at all, yet > FTL was "ruled out" before that. The later theory > adapted the former, in the limit case. And QFT, as all > Quantum descriptions describe the observables only. I > think Bohr was right in saying that all measurements are > classical. At uncertainty nothing can be measured. If > measurements are classical then they must obey GR. > > > > > > > > > Just because it did not appear in the FIRST FEW > > papers about spacetime does not mean that work has > > not been done since then. > > >> [..] > > >>>> 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. > > > And the same is true for RoS. It is not reliant on > > light communication. The first time its plausibility > > was explained, that explanation involved light, but > > that is incidental. > > Sam Wormley has a different opinion on that, which I > agree with. > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Daryl McCullough on 27 Jul 2010 13:58
Hayek says... >In the latest Now, every object has a velocity, setting >direction and speed. What does "velocity" mean, if not the derivative of position with respect to time? >Caused by inertia. >I suppose you could say that "time is a function of >change of position". That doesn't make sense. You can't say that position has *changed* unless you have two different times to compare those positions. -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY |