"Causality" or "determinism"?
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: ARINDAM BANERJEE, THE greatest cuckoo of all time
Next: How is SR this probability problem explained?
From: Tue Sorensen on 5 Mar 2010 22:34 On 5 Mar., 23:27, thro...(a)sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote: > : Erik Max Francis <m...(a)alcyone.com> > : A better way to say it is: All particles contain energy. Photons are a > : particular type of particle that really isn't much more than energy itself. So why not just call them energy? > Yes, though it's always best to keep in mind that the *amount* of energy > "contained" in a particle is observer (that is, coordinate system) > dependent, not invariant. Which always makes me less than sanguine to > say that particles "contain" energy. Hm, can you make me understand this better? - Tue
From: Wayne Throop on 5 Mar 2010 22:19 :: There are certain things that are not affected by your frame of :: reference. These are invariants, and you can use them to good :: effect in many circumstances. This seems to be what Wayne was :: talking about. : Tue Sorensen <sorensonian(a)gmail.com> : Yes, that does smack of a universal frame of reference... His point is that it does NOT smack of a universal frame of reference. I'm not sure why you think it does. Consider a long, thin rod in arbitrary x,y coordinate systems. Say you have one coordinate system in which one end of the rod is at x=0,y=0 and is at a 30 degree angle wrt the x axis. At the same time, another coordinate system x',y', in which the same rod has one end at x'=0,y'=0 and is at a 60 degree angle wrt the x' axis. Now consider the x vs x' coordinate of the other end of that rod. Note that x *does* *not* *equal* x'. The displacement along x is not invariant to rotation. However, the other end of the rod is still the same distance from the origin, so x^2+y^2 = x'^2+y'^2. In short, x-extent and y-extent is not invariant to rotation. But distance *is* invariant to rotation. In relativity, distance and duration are not invariant to changes in velocity. But space-time intervals between any two events *are* invariant. The spacetime interval being x^2-t^2; much significance is tied to that change from "+" in the pythogorean theorem to "-" in space-time intervals. And none of this implies in any way an absolute frame of reference. In fact, it pretty much denies it. Because you may note that you can use whatever coordinates (aka "whatever frame") you want, and you still get the same spacetime intervals. Wayne Throop throopw(a)sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
From: Wayne Throop on 5 Mar 2010 22:38 : Tue Sorensen <sorensonian(a)gmail.com> : Well, you know, it's going to be my little contribution to the : scientific terminology one day! Typically, to contibute new scientific terminology, one has to at least vaguely understand current scientific terminology. Which does not seem to be the case here. Wayne Throop throopw(a)sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
From: Wayne Throop on 5 Mar 2010 22:40 : Tue Sorensen <sorensonian(a)gmail.com> : If QM believes in true randomness, then I disagree with it, along with : Albert E. Everything follows laws. Otherwise the universe couldn't work. So... basically you're prejudiced, and impervious to evidence and reasoning. Good to know. Wayne Throop throopw(a)sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
From: BURT on 5 Mar 2010 22:41
On Mar 5, 7:38 pm, thro...(a)sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote: > : Tue Sorensen <sorenson...(a)gmail.com> > : Well, you know, it's going to be my little contribution to the > : scientific terminology one day! > > Typically, to contibute new scientific terminology, one has to > at least vaguely understand current scientific terminology. > Which does not seem to be the case here. > > Wayne Throop thro...(a)sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw There is a universal instant right now and forever everywhere. All clocks tick. Mitch Raemsch |