Ok, you have an hypothetical particle the size of the Planck Length, and
you accelerate it at 99.999999999999% of the speed of light.
What will happen?
Will it experience length contraction?
Special Relativity domain of application stops at the P[anck scale
Ok, you have an hypothetical particle the size of the Planck Length, and
you accelerate it at 99.999999999999% of the speed of light.
What will happen?
Will it experience length contraction?
Guillermo GarcÃa Rojas C. <garci...@gmail.com> wrote:
Ok, you have an hypothetical particle the size of the Planck Length, and you accelerate it at 99.999999999999% of the speed of light.You should try to understand that 'Planck-length'
What will happen?
Will it experience length contraction?
is not an actual length of anything.
It is a scale,
On 01-Sept-23 12:54 pm, Guillermo GarcÃa Rojas C. wrote:You are a poor excuse for a philosopher, Sylvia. And a loose and illogical thinker too. Try and keep objective physical reality along AND subjective physical reality top of mind. They are inextricably paired. That's how the universe is, unless you
Ok, you have an hypothetical particle the size of the Planck Length, and you accelerate it at 99.999999999999% of the speed of light.Nothing experiences length contraction. It is something measured by relatively moving observers, not something that happens to things that
What will happen?
Will it experience length contraction?
are moving fast.
Sylvia.
On 01-Sept-23 12:54 pm, Guillermo GarcÃa Rojas C. wrote:
Ok, you have an hypothetical particle the size of the Planck Length, and you accelerate it at 99.999999999999% of the speed of light.Nothing experiences length contraction. It is something measured by relatively moving observers, not something that happens to things that
What will happen?
Will it experience length contraction?
are moving fast.
Ok, you have an hypothetical particle the size of the Planck Length, and
you accelerate it at 99.999999999999% of the speed of light.
What will happen?
Will it experience length contraction?
Ok, you have an hypothetical particle the size of the Planck Length, and
you accelerate it at 99.999999999999% of the speed of light.
What will happen?
Will it experience length contraction?
Le 01/09/2023 Ã 04:54, Guillermo GarcÃa Rojas C. a Ã©crit :
Ok, you have an hypothetical particle the size of the Planck Length, and you accelerate it at 99.999999999999% of the speed of light.No, in HIS referential, its proper length is invariant.
What will happen?
Will it experience length contraction?
But it still poses a problem if we admit a huge
Â contracted molecule whose longitudinal length seen from another frame
of reference is a thousand times smaller than the Planck length.
R.H.
[...]
On 9/1/23 4:01 AM, patdolan wrote:
[...]
How silly. HOW IGNORANT.
Analogy:
Use a ruler to measure the width of a (rectangular) desktop. When laid
down parallel to the front edge you get one value, and when angled
relative to the front edge you get a different (larger) value.
a) did the desk change between these two measurements?
b) did the ruler change between these two measurements?
c) what caused the difference in measurements?
Answers: a) no, b) no, c) the different geometrical relationship between ruler and desktop.
"Time dilation" and "length contraction" are the same -- neither the
object being measured nor the measuring instrument changed in any way,
but the GEOMETRICAL RELATIONSHIP between them changed.
Tom Roberts
On 9/1/23 4:01 AM, patdolan wrote:
[...]
How silly. HOW IGNORANT.
Analogy:
Use a ruler to measure the width of a (rectangular) desktop. When laid
down parallel to the front edge you get one value, and when angled
relative to the front edge you get a different (larger) value.
Use a ruler to measure the width of a desktop. When laid
down parallel to the front edge you get one value, and when angled
relative to the front edge you get a different (larger) value.
a) did the desk change between these two measurements?
b) did the ruler change between these two measurements?
c) what caused the difference in measurements?
"Time dilation" and "length contraction" are the same -- neither the
object being measured nor the measuring instrument changed in any way,
but the GEOMETRICAL RELATIONSHIP between them changed.
Guillermo GarcÃa Rojas C. <garci...@gmail.com> wrote:
Ok, you have an hypothetical particle the size of the Planck Length, and you accelerate it at 99.999999999999% of the speed of light.You should try to understand that 'Planck-length'
What will happen?
Will it experience length contraction?
is not an actual length of anything.
It is a scale,
Jan
On 01-Sept-23 12:54 pm, Guillermo GarcÃa Rojas C. wrote:
Ok, you have an hypothetical particle the size of the Planck Length, and you accelerate it at 99.999999999999% of the speed of light.Nothing experiences length contraction. It is something measured by relatively moving observers, not something that happens to things that
What will happen?
Will it experience length contraction?
are moving fast.
Sylvia.
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 5:49:07â€¯AM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote:Yup.
On 01-Sept-23 12:54 pm, Guillermo GarcÃa Rojas C. wrote:
Ok, you have an hypothetical particle the size of the Planck Length, and you accelerate it at 99.999999999999% of the speed of light.Nothing experiences length contraction. It is something measured by relatively moving observers, not something that happens to things that
What will happen?
Will it experience length contraction?
are moving fast.
Sylvia.But but, if this thing is only perceptual (subjective perception by relatively moving observers over other relatively moving
thing, with a constant v speed of relative difference in motion to the relatively moving observer), THEN relativity IS NOT REAL!
It's a mere illusion, more sophisticated than galilean relativity.
Then, its companion effect (time dilation) is just an illusion too. Just hypnotism of the observers. A PSEUDOSCIENCE.
On 9/1/23 4:01 AM, patdolan wrote:This is reasoning by analogy. Analogies can only be pushed so far before breaking down. So let's push your desk and ruler analogy to the breaking point. If I accelerate along a very long ruler, not only does the ruler contract according to a non-
[...]
How silly. HOW IGNORANT.
Analogy:
Use a ruler to measure the width of a (rectangular) desktop. When laid
down parallel to the front edge you get one value, and when angled
relative to the front edge you get a different (larger) value.
a) did the desk change between these two measurements?
b) did the ruler change between these two measurements?
c) what caused the difference in measurements?
Answers: a) no, b) no, c) the different geometrical relationship between ruler and desktop.
"Time dilation" and "length contraction" are the same -- neither the
object being measured nor the measuring instrument changed in any way,
but the GEOMETRICAL RELATIONSHIP between them changed.
Tom Roberts
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 7:24:03â€¯PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 5:49:07â€¯AM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 01-Sept-23 12:54 pm, Guillermo GarcÃa Rojas C. wrote:
Ok, you have an hypothetical particle the size of the Planck Length, andNothing experiences length contraction. It is something measured by relatively moving observers, not something that happens to things that are moving fast.
you accelerate it at 99.999999999999% of the speed of light.
What will happen?
Will it experience length contraction?
Sylvia.But but, if this thing is only perceptual (subjective perception by relatively moving observers over other relatively moving
thing, with a constant v speed of relative difference in motion to the relatively moving observer), THEN relativity IS NOT REAL!
It's a mere illusion, more sophisticated than galilean relativity.
Then, its companion effect (time dilation) is just an illusion too. Just hypnotism of the observers. A PSEUDOSCIENCE.
Yup.
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 7:42:40â€¯PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 7:24:03â€¯PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 5:49:07â€¯AM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 01-Sept-23 12:54 pm, Guillermo GarcÃa Rojas C. wrote:
Ok, you have an hypothetical particle the size of the Planck Length, andNothing experiences length contraction. It is something measured by relatively moving observers, not something that happens to things that are moving fast.
you accelerate it at 99.999999999999% of the speed of light.
What will happen?
Will it experience length contraction?
Sylvia.But but, if this thing is only perceptual (subjective perception by relatively moving observers over other relatively moving
thing, with a constant v speed of relative difference in motion to the relatively moving observer), THEN relativity IS NOT REAL!
It's a mere illusion, more sophisticated than galilean relativity.
Then, its companion effect (time dilation) is just an illusion too. Just hypnotism of the observers. A PSEUDOSCIENCE.
Yup.Nope.
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 5:49:07â€¯AM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 01-Sept-23 12:54 pm, Guillermo GarcÃa Rojas C. wrote:
Ok, you have an hypothetical particle the size of the Planck Length, and >>> you accelerate it at 99.999999999999% of the speed of light.Nothing experiences length contraction. It is something measured by
What will happen?
Will it experience length contraction?
relatively moving observers, not something that happens to things that
are moving fast.
Sylvia.
But but, if this thing is only perceptual (subjective perception by relatively moving observers over other relatively moving
thing, with a constant v speed of relative difference in motion to the relatively moving observer), THEN relativity IS NOT REAL!
It's a mere illusion, more sophisticated than galilean relativity.
Then, its companion effect (time dilation) is just an illusion too. Just hypnotism of the observers. A PSEUDOSCIENCE.
On 02-Sept-23 12:24 pm, Richard Hertz wrote:
But but, if this thing is only perceptual (subjective perception by relatively moving observers over other relatively moving
thing, with a constant v speed of relative difference in motion to the relatively moving observer), THEN relativity IS NOT REAL!
It's a mere illusion, more sophisticated than galilean relativity.
Then, its companion effect (time dilation) is just an illusion too. Just hypnotism of the observers. A PSEUDOSCIENCE.
Do you have a clear definition of "real"?
If we do a measurement, which is certainly something real, then special relativity tells us what the result, also something real, will be. Since
in the widest sense, measurements are all we can ever do, special
relativity tells us all that we can know. Trying to go beyond that is
only a time wasting exercise in philosophy.
Sylvia.
On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 2:28:13â€¯AM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 02-Sept-23 12:24 pm, Richard Hertz wrote:
<snip>
But but, if this thing is only perceptual (subjective perception by relatively moving observers over other relatively movingDo you have a clear definition of "real"?
thing, with a constant v speed of relative difference in motion to the relatively moving observer), THEN relativity IS NOT REAL!
It's a mere illusion, more sophisticated than galilean relativity.
Then, its companion effect (time dilation) is just an illusion too. Just hypnotism of the observers. A PSEUDOSCIENCE.
If we do a measurement, which is certainly something real, then special
relativity tells us what the result, also something real, will be. Since
in the widest sense, measurements are all we can ever do, special
relativity tells us all that we can know. Trying to go beyond that is
only a time wasting exercise in philosophy.
Sylvia.
For me, something is real if I can observe it, sense it, TOUCHT IT, smell it and, PARTICULARLY, MEASURE IT "HANDS ON".
If I have to use PARANORMAL SENSES to "measure" something that is moving away from me, and FIGURE OUT VALUES, then
I didn't measure SHIT! I just IMAGINE THAT I MEASURE SOMETHING AT A DISTANCE.
In particular, IF I HAVE TO MEASURE AT A DISTANCE SOMETHING THAT'S MOVING AWAY AT A CONSTANT 150,000 KM/SEC.
In just ONE SECOND, what I'm trying to measure REMOTELY is far from me by half the average distance Earth-Moon.
In two seconds, the shit just arrived to the Moon and crashed there. No more measurements are possible.
See why relativity IS A PILE OF CRAP?
On 02-Sept-23 3:52 pm, Richard Hertz wrote:
On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 2:28:13â€¯AM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 02-Sept-23 12:24 pm, Richard Hertz wrote:
<snip>
But but, if this thing is only perceptual (subjective perception by relatively moving observers over other relatively movingDo you have a clear definition of "real"?
thing, with a constant v speed of relative difference in motion to the relatively moving observer), THEN relativity IS NOT REAL!
It's a mere illusion, more sophisticated than galilean relativity.
Then, its companion effect (time dilation) is just an illusion too. Just hypnotism of the observers. A PSEUDOSCIENCE.
If we do a measurement, which is certainly something real, then special >> relativity tells us what the result, also something real, will be. Since >> in the widest sense, measurements are all we can ever do, special
relativity tells us all that we can know. Trying to go beyond that is
only a time wasting exercise in philosophy.
Sylvia.
For me, something is real if I can observe it, sense it, TOUCHT IT, smell it and, PARTICULARLY, MEASURE IT "HANDS ON".
If I have to use PARANORMAL SENSES to "measure" something that is moving away from me, and FIGURE OUT VALUES, then
I didn't measure SHIT! I just IMAGINE THAT I MEASURE SOMETHING AT A DISTANCE.
In particular, IF I HAVE TO MEASURE AT A DISTANCE SOMETHING THAT'S MOVING AWAY AT A CONSTANT 150,000 KM/SEC.
In just ONE SECOND, what I'm trying to measure REMOTELY is far from me by half the average distance Earth-Moon.
In two seconds, the shit just arrived to the Moon and crashed there. No more measurements are possible.
See why relativity IS A PILE OF CRAP?
You cannot measure things remotely anyway. What you can do is measure
the light that arrives from the object.
Sylvia.
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 1:13:50?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Guillermo García Rojas C. <garci...@gmail.com> wrote:
Ok, you have an hypothetical particle the size of the Planck Length, and you accelerate it at 99.999999999999% of the speed of light.You should try to understand that 'Planck-length'
What will happen?
Will it experience length contraction?
is not an actual length of anything.
It is a scale,
Jan
Actually it's a "regime" the "trans-Planckian", about "running constants".
In the really, really small, length and mass are kind of the same.
On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 2:28:13?AM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 02-Sept-23 12:24 pm, Richard Hertz wrote:
<snip>
But but, if this thing is only perceptual (subjective perception by relatively moving observers over other relatively moving thing, with a constant v speed of relative difference in motion to the relatively moving observer), THEN relativity IS NOT REAL!
It's a mere illusion, more sophisticated than galilean relativity.
Then, its companion effect (time dilation) is just an illusion too.
Just hypnotism of the observers. A PSEUDOSCIENCE.
Do you have a clear definition of "real"?
If we do a measurement, which is certainly something real, then special relativity tells us what the result, also something real, will be. Since
in the widest sense, measurements are all we can ever do, special relativity tells us all that we can know. Trying to go beyond that is
only a time wasting exercise in philosophy.
Sylvia.
For me, something is real if I can observe it, sense it, TOUCHT IT, smell
it and, PARTICULARLY, MEASURE IT "HANDS ON".
On 02-Sept-23 12:24 pm, Richard Hertz wrote:
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 5:49:07â€¯AM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 01-Sept-23 12:54 pm, Guillermo GarcÃa Rojas C. wrote:
Ok, you have an hypothetical particle the size of the Planck Length, and >>> you accelerate it at 99.999999999999% of the speed of light.Nothing experiences length contraction. It is something measured by
What will happen?
Will it experience length contraction?
relatively moving observers, not something that happens to things that
are moving fast.
Sylvia.
But but, if this thing is only perceptual (subjective perception by relatively moving observers over other relatively moving
thing, with a constant v speed of relative difference in motion to the relatively moving observer), THEN relativity IS NOT REAL!
It's a mere illusion, more sophisticated than galilean relativity.
Then, its companion effect (time dilation) is just an illusion too. Just hypnotism of the observers. A PSEUDOSCIENCE.
Do you have a clear definition of "real"?
If we do a measurement, which is certainly something real
Do you have a clear definition of "real"?
If we do a measurement, which is certainly something real, then special relativity tells us what the result, also something real, will be. Since
in the widest sense, measurements are all we can ever do, special
relativity tells us all that we can know. Trying to go beyond that is
only a time wasting exercise in philosophy.
Sylvia.
On 9/1/23 4:01 AM, patdolan wrote:
[...]
How silly. HOW IGNORANT.
Analogy:
Use a ruler to measure the width of a (rectangular) desktop. When laid
down parallel to the front edge you get one value, and when angled
relative to the front edge you get a different (larger) value.
a) did the desk change between these two measurements?
b) did the ruler change between these two measurements?
c) what caused the difference in measurements?
Answers: a) no, b) no, c) the different geometrical relationship between ruler and desktop.
"Time dilation" and "length contraction" are the same -- neither the
object being measured nor the measuring instrument changed in any way,
but the GEOMETRICAL RELATIONSHIP between them changed.
Tom Roberts
On Saturday, 2 September 2023 at 07:28:13 UTC+2, Sylvia Else wrote:This is a very nice piece of reasoning, Maciej. Thank you. I shall use it often.
On 02-Sept-23 12:24 pm, Richard Hertz wrote:
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 5:49:07â€¯AM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 01-Sept-23 12:54 pm, Guillermo GarcÃa Rojas C. wrote:
Ok, you have an hypothetical particle the size of the Planck Length, andNothing experiences length contraction. It is something measured by
you accelerate it at 99.999999999999% of the speed of light.
What will happen?
Will it experience length contraction?
relatively moving observers, not something that happens to things that >> are moving fast.
Sylvia.
But but, if this thing is only perceptual (subjective perception by relatively moving observers over other relatively moving
thing, with a constant v speed of relative difference in motion to the relatively moving observer), THEN relativity IS NOT REAL!
It's a mere illusion, more sophisticated than galilean relativity.
Then, its companion effect (time dilation) is just an illusion too. Just hypnotism of the observers. A PSEUDOSCIENCE.
Do you have a clear definition of "real"?Do You have a definition of "definition", lady?
If we do a measurement, which is certainly something realBut You don't do it, You just imagine it.
On Friday, 1 September 2023 at 16:09:15 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 9/1/23 4:01 AM, patdolan wrote:
Analogy:
Use a ruler to measure the width of a (rectangular) desktop. When laid
down parallel to the front edge you get one value, and when angled
relative to the front edge you get a different (larger) value.
a) did the desk change between these two measurements?
b) did the ruler change between these two measurements?
c) what caused the difference in measurements?
Answers: a) no, b) no, c) the different geometrical relationship between ruler and desktop.
"Time dilation" and "length contraction" are the same
Le 02/09/2023 Ã 07:28, Sylvia Else a Ã©crit :You may be too quick to praise Sylvia's philosophical abilities, Richard. She contradicts herself when she claims SR tells us all that we can know. I type the following only to prove my point and not out of meanness. Sylvia claims to "know" that she
Do you have a clear definition of "real"?
If we do a measurement, which is certainly something real, then special relativity tells us what the result, also something real, will be. Since in the widest sense, measurements are all we can ever do, special relativity tells us all that we can know. Trying to go beyond that is
only a time wasting exercise in philosophy.
Sylvia.Yes, I quite agree with Sylvia.
I avoid including philosophy in my equations. :))
It's not that I'm incapable of it, quite the contrary, but I don't do that here, nor even on philosophy or religion sites.
A recent discussion took place on this subject this week on a French
forum.
Note that the equations of physics apply to all philosophical systems.
Otherwise, I would like to know what nationality Sylvia is? She's
American? California? Texas?
I really like his scientific spirit and his clear, concise and precise answers.
It's rare for a woman.
R.H.
If I accelerate along a very long ruler, not only does the ruler
contract according to a non-monotonic function [...]
but the entire universe also contracts in the direction of the
acceleration. This is not an artifact of measurements on moving
bodies. It is required by SR to be a real contraction.
On Friday, 1 September 2023 at 16:09:15 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 9/1/23 4:01 AM, patdolan wrote:
[...]
How silly. HOW IGNORANT.
Analogy:
Use a ruler to measure the width of a (rectangular) desktop. When laid
down parallel to the front edge you get one value, and when angled
relative to the front edge you get a different (larger) value.
a) did the desk change between these two measurements?
b) did the ruler change between these two measurements?
c) what caused the difference in measurements?
Answers: a) no, b) no, c) the different geometrical relationship between
ruler and desktop.
"Time dilation" and "length contraction" are the same -- neither the
object being measured nor the measuring instrument changed in any way,
but the GEOMETRICAL RELATIONSHIP between them changed.
Tom Roberts
Thatâ€™s a good one Tom.
So you are saying that I can measure time with my ruler?
Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
For me, something is real if I can observe it, sense it, TOUCHT IT, smell it and, PARTICULARLY, MEASURE IT "HANDS ON".Try it with an atom,
Jan
On 9/2/23 8:05 AM, Lou wrote:
On Friday, 1 September 2023 at 16:09:15 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 9/1/23 4:01 AM, patdolan wrote:
[...]
How silly. HOW IGNORANT.
Analogy:
Use a ruler to measure the width of a (rectangular) desktop. When laid
down parallel to the front edge you get one value, and when angled
relative to the front edge you get a different (larger) value.
a) did the desk change between these two measurements?
b) did the ruler change between these two measurements?
c) what caused the difference in measurements?
Answers: a) no, b) no, c) the different geometrical relationship between >> ruler and desktop.
"Time dilation" and "length contraction" are the same -- neither the
object being measured nor the measuring instrument changed in any way,
but the GEOMETRICAL RELATIONSHIP between them changed.
Tom Roberts
Thatâ€™s a good one Tom.No. Here "the same" means they are also geometrical projections.
So you are saying that I can measure time with my ruler?
Tom Roberts
On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 6:43:46â€¯AM UTC-3, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
For me, something is real if I can observe it, sense it, TOUCHT IT, smellTry it with an atom,
it and, PARTICULARLY, MEASURE IT "HANDS ON".
JanEverything in quantum physics, nuclear physics and molecular chemistry enter in the field of STATISTICAL SCIENCES.
Nothing below 0.1 nanometers can be observed DIRECTLY, nor a single object can be ISOLATED.
All of this knowledge is based on statistical AVERAGES. That's the mystic of the quantum world.
Yet, the knowledge has progressed in the last century by the accumulation of INDIRECT, AVERAGE MEASUREMENTS.
Same with cosmology. AVERAGES.
Do you have a clear definition of "real"?
If we do a measurement, which is certainly something real, then special relativity tells us what the result, also something real, will be. Since
in the widest sense, measurements are all we can ever do, special
relativity tells us all that we can know.
For me, something is real if I can observe it, sense it, TOUCHT IT, smell it and,
PARTICULARLY, MEASURE IT "HANDS ON".
See why relativity IS A PILE OF CRAP?
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 1:13:50?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Guillermo GarcÃa Rojas C. <garci...@gmail.com> wrote:
Ok, you have an hypothetical particle the size of the Planck Length, andYou should try to understand that 'Planck-length'
you accelerate it at 99.999999999999% of the speed of light.
What will happen?
Will it experience length contraction?
is not an actual length of anything.
It is a scale,
Jan
Actually it's a "regime" the "trans-Planckian", about "running constants".Yes, that's it. The 'Planck length' is just another length unit.
(with a conventional choice of numerical constant)
'At the Planck scale' is a 'regime', if you prefer that word.
Physics at a thoussnds of the Planck length,
or at thousand times the Planck length
is still 'physics at the Planck scale'. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units>
[-]
In the really, really small, length and mass are kind of the same.Eh, mass is -an inverse- length. (or an inverse time).
And since c and \hbar are really one,
the same holds at all scales, and not just 'kind of',
Jan
On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 2:43:45â€¯AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 1:13:50?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Guillermo GarcÃa Rojas C. <garci...@gmail.com> wrote:
Ok, you have an hypothetical particle the size of the Planck Length, andYou should try to understand that 'Planck-length'
you accelerate it at 99.999999999999% of the speed of light.
What will happen?
Will it experience length contraction?
is not an actual length of anything.
It is a scale,
Jan
Actually it's a "regime" the "trans-Planckian", about "running constants".Yes, that's it. The 'Planck length' is just another length unit.
(with a conventional choice of numerical constant)
'At the Planck scale' is a 'regime', if you prefer that word.
Physics at a thoussnds of the Planck length,
or at thousand times the Planck length
is still 'physics at the Planck scale'. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units>
[-]
In the really, really small, length and mass are kind of the same.Eh, mass is -an inverse- length. (or an inverse time).
And since c and \hbar are really one,
the same holds at all scales, and not just 'kind of',
JanEvery few years NIST CODATA or the Particle Data Group,
releases an edition of the fundamental physical constants,
and every few years, the small ones get smaller.
Not just more precise: smaller.
These days the sky survey is finding a similar sort of thing, the universe gets
older and bigger ever year.
Now, how this relates to the Planck scale and the trans-Planckian, is as of matters of continuum mechanics in the quantum mechanics, and, in the
matters of the sampling/observer/measurement effects, where they are
always interactions, the sampling, observer, and measurement. I.e. formally there are no observations that aren't interactions, in an open system like physics.
Let's see here, leafing through Brown's "Planck: Driven by Vision, Broken by War".
"Planck is known as the father of quantum theory, and most textbooks give students
little more than that. He was German. He was a theoretical physicist (versus an
experimental, or a laboratory-based one), with a firm grasp of mathematics."
I'd earmarked this, "... most exciting to Max himself, and of great relevance to
physics still, he had proposed the idea of 'natural units', a system of measurements
based only on fundamental universal constants, with no bias from human preference,
convenience, or experience."
Now, that's laudable, these days we have what's "defined" and what follows what's
"derived", then though also there is "normalization" and "renormalization" in the
quantum, from particle/wave duality and the discrete/continuous nature of things
and that going back-and-forth makes "de-re-normalization" and another usual milieu,
just to indicate that "natural units" is overloaded both in terms of "fundamental physical
quantities", and, "algebraic treatment of perfect algebraic quantities".
" ... Planck time 5.39 e-44, ... Planck length 1.62e-35 ...."
(Here the atom's down around e-25, superstrings e-50, Angstroms and Plancks either side e-25.)
It talks about entropy and that's from thermo second law and Kelvin and so on,
where these days there is the adiabatic and nonadiabatic, and physics is an open
system, and thermo second law and entropy isn't always king, while agreeably it's "the usual definition of entropy, not the alternate definition also its opposite".
It talks about Max von Laue and then Clausius/Helmholtz/Hertz/Planck, but, it
should as well include Hooke, Kelvin, Rayleight, about discretization about quantum
theory, and about attenuation and dissipation or least action and equilibrium.
"None of my professors at the University has any understanding for [my thesis],
as I learned for a fact in my conversations with them." -- Planck
Planck's fixation on entropy is just another old "what goes up must come down",
but still, things go up, and time irreversibility is not the same thing as the absence
of organization and state or the input of intelligence what can make information.
There really is an entire dichotomy about first and second thermo law and there
really is an entire dichotomy about entropy and information. Planck is agreeably
a very opinionated linear thinker who doesn't address some of the issues in the
fact that for a "theoretical" physicist it's the "operationalist" sort, there are others.
"Helmholtz probably did not even read my paper at all. Kirchhoff expressly disapproved of its contents." -- Planck
"Starting in his middle age, Max had written increasingly as a would-be philosopher.
In particular he took up written combat with those of the 'positivist' persuasion.
... for Planck a belief in the absolute was the fundamental fuel that kept science running."
'In 1906, Planck published the first follow-up to Einstein's new theory, showing that
his own beloved entropy, as well as the principle of 'least action', -- a mathematical
statement of nature's efficiency - was preserved in the world of special relativity."
"E = (C lambda ^ -5) / ( e^(c/ lambda T) - 1 )"
"The big C and little c are just constants that help fine-tune the equation to match
the measure data. Such constants are the measurements a physics tailor makes when fitting a body of data with an outfit of mathematics."
Well that doesn't seem principled from the theoretical side.
"Planck knew that he would have to carry out a real fitting for the values of C and c
at some point."
"Planck pull the crucial mathematical pieces from a relatively old paper of Boltzmann's,
1877's 'On the Relation between the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the Theory of
Probability".
So, these days, various novelties in probability theory make for things like "the error record"
but generally for the profusion of non-standard techniques in probability and distribution
theory, this can help explain the adiabatic and nonadiabatic, and, differences, about why,
Planck's Boltzmann's Kelvin's Hooke's mathematics of approximations in numerical methods
in a statistical analysis, made some things easy for special relativity and electron physics together.
So anyways these days the "trans-Planckian" regime is about "running constants", and most of
the money for collider experiments, is just to release a more refined edition of the NIST CODATA
Particle Data Group constants, which, shrink each year. (According to higher energy or intensity
but energy, of experiment.)
Then in physics that's framed in "superstring theory" (its, scale) which is about "continuum mechanics"
and that "mathematics _owes_ physics more and better mathematics of infinities and infinitesimals,
in the continuous and discrete, to equip all the mathematics and probability theory, for the
ubiquitous success of mathematics in physics."
Then, in the very small, matters of scale even become geometrically fluid, in units, and dimensions,
in the arbitrarily small, and continuum mechanics.
Then, Planck is a great champion of thermo second law, which though, is seeing that because
physics is an open system, the "extra-local" is where it's getting that QM and GR don't "disbelieve"
each other, or that the modern "catastrophe" in physics is deconstructing and resolving the
same "ultraviolet catastrophe" and making better and superclassical models of particles,m
in their fields, or quantum field theory.
On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 2:43:45?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:[-]
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 1:13:50?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Guillermo García Rojas C. <garci...@gmail.com> wrote:
Ok, you have an hypothetical particle the size of the PlanckYou should try to understand that 'Planck-length'
Length, and you accelerate it at 99.999999999999% of the speed of light.
What will happen?
Will it experience length contraction?
is not an actual length of anything.
It is a scale,
Jan
Actually it's a "regime" the "trans-Planckian", about "running constants".Yes, that's it. The 'Planck length' is just another length unit.
(with a conventional choice of numerical constant)
'At the Planck scale' is a 'regime', if you prefer that word.
Physics at a thoussnds of the Planck length,
or at thousand times the Planck length
is still 'physics at the Planck scale'. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units>
[-]
In the really, really small, length and mass are kind of the same.Eh, mass is -an inverse- length. (or an inverse time).
And since c and \hbar are really one,
the same holds at all scales, and not just 'kind of',
I'd earmarked this, "... most exciting to Max himself, and of great
relevance to physics still, he had proposed the idea of 'natural units', a system of measurements based only on fundamental universal constants, with
no bias from human preference, convenience, or experience."
"Starting in his middle age, Max had written increasingly as a would-be philosopher. In particular he took up written combat with those of the 'positivist' persuasion.
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 2:43:45?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 1:13:50?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Guillermo GarcÃa Rojas C. <garci...@gmail.com> wrote:
Ok, you have an hypothetical particle the size of the Planck Length, and you accelerate it at 99.999999999999% of the speed of light.You should try to understand that 'Planck-length'
What will happen?
Will it experience length contraction?
is not an actual length of anything.
It is a scale,
Jan
Actually it's a "regime" the "trans-Planckian", about "running constants".Yes, that's it. The 'Planck length' is just another length unit.
(with a conventional choice of numerical constant)
'At the Planck scale' is a 'regime', if you prefer that word.
Physics at a thoussnds of the Planck length,
or at thousand times the Planck length
is still 'physics at the Planck scale'. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units>
[-][-]
In the really, really small, length and mass are kind of the same.Eh, mass is -an inverse- length. (or an inverse time).
And since c and \hbar are really one,
the same holds at all scales, and not just 'kind of',
I'd earmarked this, "... most exciting to Max himself, and of great relevance to physics still, he had proposed the idea of 'natural units', a system of measurements based only on fundamental universal constants, with no bias from human preference, convenience, or experience."Yes, and it was Planck's discovery of Planck's constant
that made it possible.
Planck also discovered the fact that electric charge
is naturally dimensionless.
His original idea was to put it equal to one,
but he soon discovered that this is not a goood idea at all.
[-]
"Starting in his middle age, Max had written increasingly as a would-be philosopher. In particular he took up written combat with those of the 'positivist' persuasion.With good reason.
It was Ernst Mach who was the incompetent amateur philosopher.
Mach made a good start in disposing of Newton's Absolutes,
but he made a complete fool of himself
by denying the existence of atoms.
(except as convenient mathematical fictions)
Planck crushed him.
Jan
On September 1, Sylvia Else wrote:rement.pdf
Do you have a clear definition of "real"?
If we do a measurement, which is certainly something real, then special relativity tells us what the result, also something real, will be. Since
in the widest sense, measurements are all we can ever do, special relativity tells us all that we can know.
Check this, then tell me what he's trying to say: https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/bell/Against_Measu
I can't decipher it.
On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 1:37:26?PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:[-]
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 2:43:45?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 1:13:50?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
[ramblings]'At the Planck scale' is a 'regime', if you prefer that word.
Physics at a thoussnds of the Planck length,
or at thousand times the Planck length
is still 'physics at the Planck scale'. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units>
[-][-]
In the really, really small, length and mass are kind of the same.Eh, mass is -an inverse- length. (or an inverse time).
And since c and \hbar are really one,
the same holds at all scales, and not just 'kind of',
I'd earmarked this, "... most exciting to Max himself, and of great relevance to physics still, he had proposed the idea of 'naturalYes, and it was Planck's discovery of Planck's constant
units', a system of measurements based only on fundamental universal constants, with no bias from human preference, convenience, or experience."
that made it possible.
Planck also discovered the fact that electric charge
is naturally dimensionless.
His original idea was to put it equal to one,
but he soon discovered that this is not a goood idea at all.
[-]
"Starting in his middle age, Max had written increasingly as a would-be philosopher. In particular he took up written combat with those of the 'positivist' persuasion.With good reason.
It was Ernst Mach who was the incompetent amateur philosopher.
Mach made a good start in disposing of Newton's Absolutes,
but he made a complete fool of himself
by denying the existence of atoms.
(except as convenient mathematical fictions)
Planck crushed him.
Jan
Maybe you can see though that "natural units" includes the conceit that quantization is more than a mathematical interpretation at all, that for Planck's stated goals, there's a deconstructive (and, self-re-organizing, constructive) account, what he has as a win, isn't the top (nor, the
bottom, as it were).
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 1:37:26?PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:[-]
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 2:43:45?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 1:13:50?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
'At the Planck scale' is a 'regime', if you prefer that word. Physics at a thoussnds of the Planck length,
or at thousand times the Planck length
is still 'physics at the Planck scale'. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units>
[-][-]
In the really, really small, length and mass are kind of the same.Eh, mass is -an inverse- length. (or an inverse time).
And since c and \hbar are really one,
the same holds at all scales, and not just 'kind of',
I'd earmarked this, "... most exciting to Max himself, and of great relevance to physics still, he had proposed the idea of 'natural units', a system of measurements based only on fundamental universal constants, with no bias from human preference, convenience, or experience."Yes, and it was Planck's discovery of Planck's constant
that made it possible.
Planck also discovered the fact that electric charge
is naturally dimensionless.
His original idea was to put it equal to one,
but he soon discovered that this is not a goood idea at all.
[-]
"Starting in his middle age, Max had written increasingly as a would-beWith good reason.
philosopher. In particular he took up written combat with those of the 'positivist' persuasion.
It was Ernst Mach who was the incompetent amateur philosopher.
Mach made a good start in disposing of Newton's Absolutes,
but he made a complete fool of himself
by denying the existence of atoms.
(except as convenient mathematical fictions)
Planck crushed him.
[ramblings]Jan
Maybe you can see though that "natural units" includes the conceit that quantization is more than a mathematical interpretation at all, that for Planck's stated goals, there's a deconstructive (and, self-re-organizing, constructive) account, what he has as a win, isn't the top (nor, the bottom, as it were).Pfft.
Are you really incapable of seeing that 'natural units' are just units?
(of a kind that is convenient, for many purposes)
Nowadays they are nothing but the SI,
with some superfluous spurious constants removed.
[snip more ramblings]
Jan
RichD <r_dela...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On September 1, Sylvia Else wrote:
Do you have a clear definition of "real"?
If we do a measurement, which is certainly something real, then special relativity tells us what the result, also something real, will be. Since in the widest sense, measurements are all we can ever do, special relativity tells us all that we can know.
Check this, then tell me what he's trying to say: https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/bell/Against_Measurement.pdf
I can't decipher it.In one line: Von Neumann's 'projection postulate' is nonsense,
Jan
On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 4:01:07â€¯AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
RichD <r_dela...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On September 1, Sylvia Else wrote:
Do you have a clear definition of "real"?
If we do a measurement, which is certainly something real, then special
relativity tells us what the result, also something real, will be. Since
in the widest sense, measurements are all we can ever do, special relativity tells us all that we can know.
Check this, then tell me what he's trying to say: https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/bell/Against_Measurement.pdf
I can't decipher it.In one line: Von Neumann's 'projection postulate' is nonsense,
JanYou know, Bohm and de Broglie's interpretation of "real wave function" has really
seen quite a revival and what was these days all "Multiple-Worlds" and "all stochastic"
looks more like "mechanism results observed stochastic, though, also there's some
input of extra what were hidden variables or parameters that result anything called
non-local, entangled, or after resonance/wave duality above particle/wave duality".
"Multiple-Worlds" is like "Dark Matter": a popular, widely received theory in a specialized
sub-field of physics that's has no observables, offers no mechanism, and is unscientific.
Then these days "resonance theory" and "MOND" and such, though I'm for fall gravity,
offer observables and mechanisms to replace such what were popular if useless notions.
In other news James Webb Space Telescope more firmly paint-canned to round-file the
inflationary cosmology, which though has been coming a long time, since CMBR and 2MASS
and such, and the sky survey having a bit more context than 19 plates exposed in Egypt.
Check this, then tell me what he's trying to say:
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/bell/Against_Measurement.pdf
I can't decipher it.
In one line: Von Neumann's 'projection postulate' is nonsense,
On September 1, Sylvia Else wrote:
Do you have a clear definition of "real"?
If we do a measurement, which is certainly something real, then special
relativity tells us what the result, also something real, will be. Since
in the widest sense, measurements are all we can ever do, special
relativity tells us all that we can know.
Check this, then tell me what he's trying to say: https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/bell/Against_Measurement.pdf
I can't decipher it.
--
Rich
On 03-Sept-23 4:37 am, RichD wrote:
On September 1, Sylvia Else wrote:
Do you have a clear definition of "real"?
If we do a measurement, which is certainly something real, then special >> relativity tells us what the result, also something real, will be. Since >> in the widest sense, measurements are all we can ever do, special
relativity tells us all that we can know.
Check this, then tell me what he's trying to say: https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/bell/Against_Measurement.pdf
I can't decipher it.
--When we do measurements, we get results.
Rich
But what was the state of the system before we did the measurement. Shouldn't our theories do more than just tell us what results we'll get
when we do a measurement, and have something to say about the state of
the system itself?
I suppose it would be nice if it did, but how could we ever test such a theory, when all we can do are measurements? A theory that goes beyond
what can be measured, even in principle, is philosophy.
He also raises some objections to the way we treat measurement devices,
and the things being measured, as if they're somehow fundamentally different. And, of course, we do. If we treat our measurement device as
a quantum object, then we need another non-quantum measurement device to observe the first one, and hence into an infinite regression.
Sylvia.
On 03-Sept-23 4:37 am, RichD wrote:
On September 1, Sylvia Else wrote:
Do you have a clear definition of "real"?
If we do a measurement, which is certainly something real, then special >> relativity tells us what the result, also something real, will be. Since >> in the widest sense, measurements are all we can ever do, special
relativity tells us all that we can know.
Check this, then tell me what he's trying to say: https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/bell/Against_Measurement.pdf
I can't decipher it.
--When we do measurements, we get results.
Rich
But what was the state of the system before we did the measurement. Shouldn't our theories do more than just tell us what results we'll get
when we do a measurement, and have something to say about the state of
the system itself?
I suppose it would be nice if it did, but how could we ever test such a theory, when all we can do are measurements? A theory that goes beyond
what can be measured, even in principle, is philosophy.
He also raises some objections to the way we treat measurement devices,
and the things being measured, as if they're somehow fundamentally different. And, of course, we do. If we treat our measurement device as
a quantum object, then we need another non-quantum measurement device to observe the first one, and hence into an infinite regression.
Sylvia.
On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 4:01:07â€¯AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
RichD <r_dela...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On September 1, Sylvia Else wrote:
Do you have a clear definition of "real"?
If we do a measurement, which is certainly something real, then special
relativity tells us what the result, also something real, will be. Since
in the widest sense, measurements are all we can ever do, special relativity tells us all that we can know.
Check this, then tell me what he's trying to say: https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/bell/Against_Measurement.pdf
I can't decipher it.In one line: Von Neumann's 'projection postulate' is nonsense,
JanYou know, Bohm and de Broglie's interpretation of "real wave function" has really
seen quite a revival and what was these days all "Multiple-Worlds" and "all stochastic"
looks more like "mechanism results observed stochastic, though, also there's some
input of extra what were hidden variables or parameters that result anything called
non-local, entangled, or after resonance/wave duality above particle/wave duality".
"Multiple-Worlds" is like "Dark Matter": a popular, widely received theory in a specialized
sub-field of physics that's has no observables, offers no mechanism, and is unscientific.
Then these days "resonance theory" and "MOND" and such, though I'm for fall gravity,
offer observables and mechanisms to replace such what were popular if useless notions.
In other news James Webb Space Telescope more firmly paint-canned to round-file the
inflationary cosmology, which though has been coming a long time, since CMBR and 2MASS
and such, and the sky survey having a bit more context than 19 plates exposed in Egypt.
On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 6:39:50â€¯PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 03-Sept-23 4:37 am, RichD wrote:
On September 1, Sylvia Else wrote:When we do measurements, we get results.
Do you have a clear definition of "real"?
If we do a measurement, which is certainly something real, then special >>>> relativity tells us what the result, also something real, will be. Since >>>> in the widest sense, measurements are all we can ever do, special
relativity tells us all that we can know.
Check this, then tell me what he's trying to say:
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/bell/Against_Measurement.pdf
I can't decipher it.
--
Rich
Are you sure about that?
Quantum mechanics says all measurements are uncertain.
Uncertainty is science's central principle.
On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 9:42:56â€¯AM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 4:01:07â€¯AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
RichD <r_dela...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On September 1, Sylvia Else wrote:
Do you have a clear definition of "real"?
If we do a measurement, which is certainly something real, then special
relativity tells us what the result, also something real, will be. Since
in the widest sense, measurements are all we can ever do, special relativity tells us all that we can know.
Check this, then tell me what he's trying to say: https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/bell/Against_Measurement.pdf
I can't decipher it.In one line: Von Neumann's 'projection postulate' is nonsense,
JanYou know, Bohm and de Broglie's interpretation of "real wave function" has really
seen quite a revival and what was these days all "Multiple-Worlds" and "all stochastic"
looks more like "mechanism results observed stochastic, though, also there's some
input of extra what were hidden variables or parameters that result anything called
non-local, entangled, or after resonance/wave duality above particle/wave duality".
"Multiple-Worlds" is like "Dark Matter": a popular, widely received theory in a specialized
sub-field of physics that's has no observables, offers no mechanism, and is unscientific.
Then these days "resonance theory" and "MOND" and such, though I'm for fall gravity,
offer observables and mechanisms to replace such what were popular if useless notions.
In other news James Webb Space Telescope more firmly paint-canned to round-file theOne of the most striking results of quark physics is "asymptotic freedom", that, the center
inflationary cosmology, which though has been coming a long time, since CMBR and 2MASS
and such, and the sky survey having a bit more context than 19 plates exposed in Egypt.
of the nucleus, isn't asymptotically bound, but asymptotically free. It belies all finite inputs,
but it's like a total fall-gravity adds up to it, the strong nuclear force, so making it simple
that gravity's a force again in quantum theory and quantum field theory.
In mathematics the study of "symmetry flex" is also called "quasi-invariant measure theory".
Also it's called continuity laws and as a superset of conservation laws, and physics is an open system.
The idea of a unified field theory, is that they all share one space-time, the fields of the forces,
for basically the kinetic and charge and the radiant nuclear, that these days its strong nuclear
for the kinetic, charge, then weak for strong nuclear and electroweak for charge, for radiant nuclear.
In this way the force carriers among this sort of tripos exchange in the field that are really potential fields,
making for a neat descriptive framework of all the things, for a "grand unified theory" that's a
"unified field theory" that's a "gauge theory" that's a "quantum mechanics" and it's a "continuum mechanics".
This is that the kinetic and charge exchange in the magnetic, and light and the radiant nuclear are the
other side, about a deconstructive account of things like the optoelectronic effects, in terms of energy,
what are otherwise exchanges, helping explain state and change, about a theory.
In the quark and gluon physics, which according to experimental physics are a watch's guts,
asymptotic freedom is like the cosmological constant and mass-energy equivalence in the rotational,
one of the great things to know.
If you're into that, ....
On 03-Sept-23 4:37 am, RichD wrote:
On September 1, Sylvia Else wrote:
Do you have a clear definition of "real"?
If we do a measurement, which is certainly something real, then special
relativity tells us what the result, also something real, will be. Since >> in the widest sense, measurements are all we can ever do, special
relativity tells us all that we can know.
Check this, then tell me what he's trying to say: https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/bell/Against_Measurement.pdf
I can't decipher it.
--When we do measurements, we get results.
Rich
On September 3, J. J. Lodder wrote:asurement.pdf
Check this, then tell me what he's trying to say:
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/bell/Against_Me
I can't decipher it.
In one line: Von Neumann's 'projection postulate' is nonsense,
What is this postulate?
On 03-Sept-23 4:37 am, RichD wrote:surement.pdf
On September 1, Sylvia Else wrote:
Do you have a clear definition of "real"?
If we do a measurement, which is certainly something real, then special
relativity tells us what the result, also something real, will be. Since >> in the widest sense, measurements are all we can ever do, special
relativity tells us all that we can know.
Check this, then tell me what he's trying to say: https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/bell/Against_Mea
I can't decipher it.
--
Rich
When we do measurements, we get results.
But what was the state of the system before we did the measurement.
Shouldn't our theories do more than just tell us what results we'll get
when we do a measurement, and have something to say about the state of
the system itself?
I suppose it would be nice if it did, but how could we ever test such a theory, when all we can do are measurements? A theory that goes beyond
what can be measured, even in principle, is philosophy.
He also raises some objections to the way we treat measurement devices,
and the things being measured, as if they're somehow fundamentally
different.
And, of course, we do. If we treat our measurement device as
a quantum object, then we need another non-quantum measurement device to observe the first one, and hence into an infinite regression.
Sylvia Else <syl...@email.invalid> wrote:
On 03-Sept-23 4:37 am, RichD wrote:
On September 1, Sylvia Else wrote:
Do you have a clear definition of "real"?
If we do a measurement, which is certainly something real, then special >> relativity tells us what the result, also something real, will be. Since >> in the widest sense, measurements are all we can ever do, special
relativity tells us all that we can know.
surement.pdfCheck this, then tell me what he's trying to say: https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/bell/Against_Mea
I can't decipher it.
--
Rich
When we do measurements, we get results.Yes, but only in a very trivial sense.
Experiments need interpretation,
and that interpretation is inevitably theory-laden.
(in all but the most primitive stages of science)
On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 4:01:07â€¯AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
RichD <r_dela...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On September 1, Sylvia Else wrote:
Do you have a clear definition of "real"?
If we do a measurement, which is certainly something real, then special
relativity tells us what the result, also something real, will be. Since
in the widest sense, measurements are all we can ever do, special relativity tells us all that we can know.
Check this, then tell me what he's trying to say: https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/bell/Against_Measurement.pdf
I can't decipher it.In one line: Von Neumann's 'projection postulate' is nonsense,
JanYou know, Bohm and de Broglie's interpretation of "real wave function" has really
seen quite a revival and what was these days all "Multiple-Worlds" and "all stochastic"
looks more like "mechanism results observed stochastic, though, also there's some
input of extra what were hidden variables or parameters that result anything called
non-local, entangled, or after resonance/wave duality above particle/wave duality".
On 9/1/23 9:40 PM, patdolan wrote:
If I accelerate along a very long ruler, not only does the rulerYou simply do not understand SR. The ruler does NOT "contract", nor does
contract according to a non-monotonic function [...]
but the entire universe also contracts in the direction of the acceleration. This is not an artifact of measurements on moving
bodies. It is required by SR to be a real contraction.
the universe. What "contracts" are MEASUREMENTS, via the requisite geometrical projection, as in the desktop analogy.
Tom Roberts
Special relativity isn't just about the maths, but also providing a consistent
*physical* model in every frame.
Larry
Le 05/09/2023 Ã 00:12, larry harson a Ã©crit :
Special relativity isn't just about the maths, but also providing a
consistent *physical* model in every frame.
Larry
Yes, that's what's the most surprising.
Special relativity is a real and true physical tool that is remarkably internally and externally consistent as long as it is understood and
used correctly.
Flawless external and experimental coherence.
Internal and theoretical coherence as long as we agree to bow our heads
to those who understand it and explain it best.
The only flaw, ultimately, in all this is the men.
Filled with self-importance and arrogance
Blaise Pascal pointed this out a long time ago.
On September 1, Sylvia Else wrote:
Do you have a clear definition of "real"?Check this, then tell me what he's trying to say: https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/bell/Against_Measurement.pdf
If we do a measurement, which is certainly something real, then special relativity tells us what the result, also something real, will be. Since in the widest sense, measurements are all we can ever do, special relativity tells us all that we can know.
I can't decipher it.
--
Rich
Le 05/09/2023 Ã 00:12, larry harson a Ã©crit :
Special relativity isn't just about the maths, but also providing a consistent
*physical* model in every frame.
LarryYes, that's what's the most surprising.
Special relativity is a real and true physical tool that is remarkably internally and externally consistent as long as it is understood and used correctly.
Flawless external and experimental coherence.
Internal and theoretical coherence as long as we agree to bow our heads to those who understand it and explain it best.
The only flaw, ultimately, in all this is the men.
Sylvia Else <syl...@email.invalid> wrote:
On 03-Sept-23 4:37 am, RichD wrote:
On September 1, Sylvia Else wrote:
Do you have a clear definition of "real"?
If we do a measurement, which is certainly something real, then special >> relativity tells us what the result, also something real, will be. Since
in the widest sense, measurements are all we can ever do, special
relativity tells us all that we can know.
surement.pdfCheck this, then tell me what he's trying to say: https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/bell/Against_Mea
I can't decipher it.
--
Rich
When we do measurements, we get results.Yes, but only in a very trivial sense.
Experiments need interpretation,
and that interpretation is inevitably theory-laden.
(in all but the most primitive stages of science)
But what was the state of the system before we did the measurement. Shouldn't our theories do more than just tell us what results we'll get when we do a measurement, and have something to say about the state ofYou are of the school that holds that the Moon didn't exist,
the system itself?
before you looked at it?
I suppose it would be nice if it did, but how could we ever test such a theory, when all we can do are measurements? A theory that goes beyond what can be measured, even in principle, is philosophy.That is naive positivism at its worst.
The whole point of theory is that it goes beyond what can be measured.
If you deny that, science gets reduced to a catalogue of observations.
(or an 'economic' condensation of such a table, by Mach)
He also raises some objections to the way we treat measurement devices, and the things being measured, as if they're somehow fundamentally different.Yes, that is straightforward Copenhagenianism.
And, of course, we do. If we treat our measurement device asAKA 'the measurement problem'.
a quantum object, then we need another non-quantum measurement device to observe the first one, and hence into an infinite regression.
Bohr, intuitively, and Von Neumann, by postulate, cut that short.
The price is spoiling the quantum evolution as described by a
Schroedinger's equation.
John Steward Bell objects to that approach, in the ref. cit.,
Jan
On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 1:05:59â€¯AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Sylvia Else <syl...@email.invalid> wrote:
On 03-Sept-23 4:37 am, RichD wrote:
On September 1, Sylvia Else wrote:
Do you have a clear definition of "real"?
If we do a measurement, which is certainly something real, then special
relativity tells us what the result, also something real, will be. Since
in the widest sense, measurements are all we can ever do, special
relativity tells us all that we can know.
surement.pdfCheck this, then tell me what he's trying to say: https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/bell/Against_Mea
I can't decipher it.
--
Rich
When we do measurements, we get results.Yes, but only in a very trivial sense.
Experiments need interpretation,
and that interpretation is inevitably theory-laden.
(in all but the most primitive stages of science)
But what was the state of the system before we did the measurement. Shouldn't our theories do more than just tell us what results we'll get when we do a measurement, and have something to say about the state of the system itself?You are of the school that holds that the Moon didn't exist,
before you looked at it?
I suppose it would be nice if it did, but how could we ever test such a theory, when all we can do are measurements? A theory that goes beyond what can be measured, even in principle, is philosophy.That is naive positivism at its worst.
The whole point of theory is that it goes beyond what can be measured.
If you deny that, science gets reduced to a catalogue of observations.
(or an 'economic' condensation of such a table, by Mach)
He also raises some objections to the way we treat measurement devices, and the things being measured, as if they're somehow fundamentally different.Yes, that is straightforward Copenhagenianism.
And, of course, we do. If we treat our measurement device asAKA 'the measurement problem'.
a quantum object, then we need another non-quantum measurement device to observe the first one, and hence into an infinite regression.
Bohr, intuitively, and Von Neumann, by postulate, cut that short.
The price is spoiling the quantum evolution as described by a Schroedinger's equation.
John Steward Bell objects to that approach, in the ref. cit.,
JanThe problem got even more confounded by the Conway-Kochen
theorem from 2006 (aka. Free Will Theorem). Bell concludes his
article with:
"The big question, in my opinion, is which, if either, of these two
precise pictures [i.e. Bohm-de Broglie vs. Ghirardi-Rimini-Weber]
can be redeveloped in a Lorentz invariant way."
It looks like the Conway-Kochen theorem prevents any such theory
from existing. It's also interesting that this theorem does not
assume quantum mechnics, it only assumes three results which
can be verified by experiment.
--
Jan
On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 6:31:44â€¯PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 1:05:59â€¯AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Sylvia Else <syl...@email.invalid> wrote:
On 03-Sept-23 4:37 am, RichD wrote:
On September 1, Sylvia Else wrote:
Do you have a clear definition of "real"?
If we do a measurement, which is certainly something real, then special
relativity tells us what the result, also something real, will be. Since
in the widest sense, measurements are all we can ever do, special >> relativity tells us all that we can know.
surement.pdfCheck this, then tell me what he's trying to say: https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/bell/Against_Mea
I can't decipher it.
--
Rich
When we do measurements, we get results.Yes, but only in a very trivial sense.
Experiments need interpretation,
and that interpretation is inevitably theory-laden.
(in all but the most primitive stages of science)
But what was the state of the system before we did the measurement. Shouldn't our theories do more than just tell us what results we'll getYou are of the school that holds that the Moon didn't exist,
when we do a measurement, and have something to say about the state of the system itself?
before you looked at it?
I suppose it would be nice if it did, but how could we ever test such aThat is naive positivism at its worst.
theory, when all we can do are measurements? A theory that goes beyond what can be measured, even in principle, is philosophy.
The whole point of theory is that it goes beyond what can be measured. If you deny that, science gets reduced to a catalogue of observations. (or an 'economic' condensation of such a table, by Mach)
He also raises some objections to the way we treat measurement devices,Yes, that is straightforward Copenhagenianism.
and the things being measured, as if they're somehow fundamentally different.
And, of course, we do. If we treat our measurement device asAKA 'the measurement problem'.
a quantum object, then we need another non-quantum measurement device to
observe the first one, and hence into an infinite regression.
Bohr, intuitively, and Von Neumann, by postulate, cut that short.
The price is spoiling the quantum evolution as described by a Schroedinger's equation.
John Steward Bell objects to that approach, in the ref. cit.,
JanThe problem got even more confounded by the Conway-Kochen
theorem from 2006 (aka. Free Will Theorem). Bell concludes his
article with:
"The big question, in my opinion, is which, if either, of these two precise pictures [i.e. Bohm-de Broglie vs. Ghirardi-Rimini-Weber]
can be redeveloped in a Lorentz invariant way."
It looks like the Conway-Kochen theorem prevents any such theory
from existing. It's also interesting that this theorem does not
assume quantum mechnics, it only assumes three results which
can be verified by experiment.
--How about it gets framed in the space as a "coordinate flux" with respect to the gauge of
Jan
course it's a gauge theory, that there's a higher-order-invariant setting so that Lorentz,
now with more Fitzgerald, rests and sits along with the rest of relativity, after rest-exchange
(momentum, boosts and pumps, Nessie's humps).
Mostly an object moving through space is local in its effects, if any, more than classical.
Of course with a small enough experiment, you can always devise an experiment that
wouldn't falsify more than classical effect. Not saying much, ....
Einstein was trying to figure out how to re-write classical motion and effect so if you
can figure it out then he was pretty interested in that.
On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 8:21:13â€¯PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 6:31:44â€¯PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 1:05:59â€¯AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Sylvia Else <syl...@email.invalid> wrote:
On 03-Sept-23 4:37 am, RichD wrote:
On September 1, Sylvia Else wrote:
Do you have a clear definition of "real"?
If we do a measurement, which is certainly something real, then special
relativity tells us what the result, also something real, will be. Since
in the widest sense, measurements are all we can ever do, special >> relativity tells us all that we can know.
surement.pdfCheck this, then tell me what he's trying to say: https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/bell/Against_Mea
I can't decipher it.
--
Rich
When we do measurements, we get results.Yes, but only in a very trivial sense.
Experiments need interpretation,
and that interpretation is inevitably theory-laden.
(in all but the most primitive stages of science)
But what was the state of the system before we did the measurement. Shouldn't our theories do more than just tell us what results we'll getYou are of the school that holds that the Moon didn't exist,
when we do a measurement, and have something to say about the state of
the system itself?
before you looked at it?
I suppose it would be nice if it did, but how could we ever test such aThat is naive positivism at its worst.
theory, when all we can do are measurements? A theory that goes beyond
what can be measured, even in principle, is philosophy.
The whole point of theory is that it goes beyond what can be measured. If you deny that, science gets reduced to a catalogue of observations. (or an 'economic' condensation of such a table, by Mach)
He also raises some objections to the way we treat measurement devices,Yes, that is straightforward Copenhagenianism.
and the things being measured, as if they're somehow fundamentally different.
And, of course, we do. If we treat our measurement device asAKA 'the measurement problem'.
a quantum object, then we need another non-quantum measurement device to
observe the first one, and hence into an infinite regression.
Bohr, intuitively, and Von Neumann, by postulate, cut that short.
The price is spoiling the quantum evolution as described by a Schroedinger's equation.
John Steward Bell objects to that approach, in the ref. cit.,
JanThe problem got even more confounded by the Conway-Kochen
theorem from 2006 (aka. Free Will Theorem). Bell concludes his
article with:
"The big question, in my opinion, is which, if either, of these two precise pictures [i.e. Bohm-de Broglie vs. Ghirardi-Rimini-Weber]
can be redeveloped in a Lorentz invariant way."
It looks like the Conway-Kochen theorem prevents any such theory
from existing. It's also interesting that this theorem does not
assume quantum mechnics, it only assumes three results which
can be verified by experiment.
--How about it gets framed in the space as a "coordinate flux" with respect to the gauge of
Jan
course it's a gauge theory, that there's a higher-order-invariant setting so that Lorentz,
now with more Fitzgerald, rests and sits along with the rest of relativity, after rest-exchange
(momentum, boosts and pumps, Nessie's humps).
Mostly an object moving through space is local in its effects, if any, more than classical.
Of course with a small enough experiment, you can always devise an experiment that
wouldn't falsify more than classical effect. Not saying much, ....
Einstein was trying to figure out how to re-write classical motion and effect so if youIt's like Einstein put it, "compound interest is a very strong force".
can figure it out then he was pretty interested in that.
On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 8:22:34â€¯PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 8:21:13â€¯PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 6:31:44â€¯PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 1:05:59â€¯AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Sylvia Else <syl...@email.invalid> wrote:
On 03-Sept-23 4:37 am, RichD wrote:
On September 1, Sylvia Else wrote:
Do you have a clear definition of "real"?
If we do a measurement, which is certainly something real, then special
relativity tells us what the result, also something real, will be. Since
in the widest sense, measurements are all we can ever do, special
relativity tells us all that we can know.
surement.pdfCheck this, then tell me what he's trying to say: https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/bell/Against_Mea
I can't decipher it.
--
Rich
When we do measurements, we get results.Yes, but only in a very trivial sense.
Experiments need interpretation,
and that interpretation is inevitably theory-laden.
(in all but the most primitive stages of science)
But what was the state of the system before we did the measurement.You are of the school that holds that the Moon didn't exist,
Shouldn't our theories do more than just tell us what results we'll get
when we do a measurement, and have something to say about the state of
the system itself?
before you looked at it?
I suppose it would be nice if it did, but how could we ever test such aThat is naive positivism at its worst.
theory, when all we can do are measurements? A theory that goes beyond
what can be measured, even in principle, is philosophy.
The whole point of theory is that it goes beyond what can be measured.
If you deny that, science gets reduced to a catalogue of observations.
(or an 'economic' condensation of such a table, by Mach)
He also raises some objections to the way we treat measurement devices,Yes, that is straightforward Copenhagenianism.
and the things being measured, as if they're somehow fundamentally different.
And, of course, we do. If we treat our measurement device asAKA 'the measurement problem'.
a quantum object, then we need another non-quantum measurement device to
observe the first one, and hence into an infinite regression.
Bohr, intuitively, and Von Neumann, by postulate, cut that short. The price is spoiling the quantum evolution as described by a Schroedinger's equation.
John Steward Bell objects to that approach, in the ref. cit.,
JanThe problem got even more confounded by the Conway-Kochen
theorem from 2006 (aka. Free Will Theorem). Bell concludes his
article with:
"The big question, in my opinion, is which, if either, of these two precise pictures [i.e. Bohm-de Broglie vs. Ghirardi-Rimini-Weber]
can be redeveloped in a Lorentz invariant way."
It looks like the Conway-Kochen theorem prevents any such theory
from existing. It's also interesting that this theorem does not
assume quantum mechnics, it only assumes three results which
can be verified by experiment.
--How about it gets framed in the space as a "coordinate flux" with respect to the gauge of
Jan
course it's a gauge theory, that there's a higher-order-invariant setting so that Lorentz,
now with more Fitzgerald, rests and sits along with the rest of relativity, after rest-exchange
(momentum, boosts and pumps, Nessie's humps).
Mostly an object moving through space is local in its effects, if any, more than classical.
Of course with a small enough experiment, you can always devise an experiment that
wouldn't falsify more than classical effect. Not saying much, ....
Hamilton is all Hamilton Jacobi these days.Einstein was trying to figure out how to re-write classical motion and effect so if youIt's like Einstein put it, "compound interest is a very strong force".
can figure it out then he was pretty interested in that.
Here's it's "Lagrangians" which is time.
Now, process control want's linear on the time, of course, but, you know, "non-scientific".
I guess "you know" means either "I don't know" or "I don't know ...".
Or "I'm trying to tell you".
I'm like "Einstein, how about Lagrangians, are Lagrangians alright" and he's like "great,
of course my differential system is also time, I told you about it".
Ah, it's what's "stochastic behavior".
So, you agree to play a game to pass the time, it's simple there are rules and events,
"let's play dice", and it's like, how we'll play the game is there will be an aspect of chance
that the only fair game is a game of all chance, there's skill and chance, including I suppose
the skill of planning a player, and taking or making plays, it's a dice game, it's fair because either
rolls the dice and they can compute the same distribution of the numbers and the rules are same
for both, or in turns, to be fair.
For example, a game where both put money down then for example "losers can quit" and "winners can quit".
There are basically games of chance, that to be fair involve only time.
So, anyways, the guy's like "I need to have a Free Will to have a random super-classical stochastic"
and it's like "sure, you have Free Will", and he's like "so how we'll play, is I'll just pick the number".
And it's like, "You can play that on yourself but me and Einstein are rolling dice."
So, eigenfunctions, are really great, they're directional. The integral equations and surface curves,
and the differential equations and solutions of systems where eigeinfunctions sit, in their eigen matrices
in their eigenvectors, make what results into usually systems of eigenfunctions, parameteric,
the geometry, you know, "coordinate free".
And it's like "how's that, Einstein" and he could be like "I'm good with Lagrangians".
Hamiltonians, Hamiltonian Jacobi Equations, Lagrangians. You want your Schwarz functions?"
And I could be like "Einstein do you think you will win?", and he's like "I've been having science try it out".
I'm like "Einstein, I demand my space contraction" and he's like "I know, I know, ...".
You are a crank.
On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 4:27:32â€¯PM UTC+1, Tom Roberts
wrote:
On 9/1/23 9:40 PM, patdolan wrote:
If I accelerate along a very long ruler, not only does the rulerYou simply do not understand SR. The ruler does NOT "contract",
contract according to a non-monotonic function [...] but the
entire universe also contracts in the direction of the
acceleration. This is not an artifact of measurements on moving
bodies. It is required by SR to be a real contraction.
nor does the universe. What "contracts" are MEASUREMENTS, via the
requisite geometrical projection, as in the desktop analogy.
Tom Roberts
This isn't entirely correct IMO. Yes, there's a geometrical
component to contraction but also a physical component.
Accelerating a very long ruler while keeping it rigid in its proper
frame requires a greater force applied to the trailing edge compared
to the leading edge so that the two ends approach one another in the
lab frame where its velocity increases:
it physically contracts in the lab frame yet physically remains
rigid in its proper frame.
Special relativity isn't just about the maths, but also providing a consistent *physical* model in every frame.
On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 1:05:59â€¯AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Sylvia Else <syl...@email.invalid> wrote:
On 03-Sept-23 4:37 am, RichD wrote:
On September 1, Sylvia Else wrote:
Do you have a clear definition of "real"?
If we do a measurement, which is certainly something real, then special
relativity tells us what the result, also something real, will be. Since
in the widest sense, measurements are all we can ever do, special
relativity tells us all that we can know.
surement.pdfCheck this, then tell me what he's trying to say: https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/bell/Against_Mea
I can't decipher it.
--
Rich
When we do measurements, we get results.Yes, but only in a very trivial sense.
Experiments need interpretation,
and that interpretation is inevitably theory-laden.
(in all but the most primitive stages of science)
But what was the state of the system before we did the measurement. Shouldn't our theories do more than just tell us what results we'll get when we do a measurement, and have something to say about the state of the system itself?You are of the school that holds that the Moon didn't exist,
before you looked at it?
I suppose it would be nice if it did, but how could we ever test such a theory, when all we can do are measurements? A theory that goes beyond what can be measured, even in principle, is philosophy.That is naive positivism at its worst.
The whole point of theory is that it goes beyond what can be measured.
If you deny that, science gets reduced to a catalogue of observations.
(or an 'economic' condensation of such a table, by Mach)
He also raises some objections to the way we treat measurement devices, and the things being measured, as if they're somehow fundamentally different.Yes, that is straightforward Copenhagenianism.
And, of course, we do. If we treat our measurement device asAKA 'the measurement problem'.
a quantum object, then we need another non-quantum measurement device to observe the first one, and hence into an infinite regression.
Bohr, intuitively, and Von Neumann, by postulate, cut that short.
The price is spoiling the quantum evolution as described by a Schroedinger's equation.
John Steward Bell objects to that approach, in the ref. cit.,
JanThe problem got even more confounded by the Conway-Kochen
theorem from 2006 (aka. Free Will Theorem). Bell concludes his
article with:
"The big question, in my opinion, is which, if either, of these two
precise pictures [i.e. Bohm-de Broglie vs. Ghirardi-Rimini-Weber]
can be redeveloped in a Lorentz invariant way."
It looks like the Conway-Kochen theorem prevents any such theory
from existing. It's also interesting that this theorem does not
assume quantum mechnics, it only assumes three results which
can be verified by experiment.
--
Jan
On 9/4/23 5:12 PM, larry harson wrote:
On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 4:27:32â€¯PM UTC+1, Tom Roberts
wrote:
On 9/1/23 9:40 PM, patdolan wrote:
If I accelerate along a very long ruler, not only does the rulerYou simply do not understand SR. The ruler does NOT "contract",
contract according to a non-monotonic function [...] but the
entire universe also contracts in the direction of the
acceleration. This is not an artifact of measurements on moving
bodies. It is required by SR to be a real contraction.
nor does the universe. What "contracts" are MEASUREMENTS, via the
requisite geometrical projection, as in the desktop analogy.
Tom Roberts
This isn't entirely correct IMO. Yes, there's a geometricalThere is no "physical component" to "length contraction" in SR. You use
component to contraction but also a physical component.
a PUN on "physical", confusing both you and your readers.
Accelerating a very long ruler while keeping it rigid in its properYes. Born rigid motion requires varying accelerations all along the
frame requires a greater force applied to the trailing edge compared
to the leading edge so that the two ends approach one another in the
lab frame where its velocity increases:
length of an object being accelerated. They must be arranged to make the inter-atomic bonds all along the ruler not be strained, so the ruler has
a constant proper length (measured in its successive instantaneously co-moving inertial frames).
In the lab inertial frame, as the Born-rigid ruler is accelerated and increases its speed relative to the lab frame, the MEASUREMENTS of the ruler's length get successively shorter. This is NOT a "physical contraction", it is merely a change in MEASUREMENTS, and is due to the variation in the successive geometrical projections of the ruler's
constant proper length onto the measuring instruments at rest in the lab frame.
it physically contracts in the lab frame yet physically remainsNo! The change in length measurements performed in the lab frame is not
rigid in its proper frame.
any sort of "physical" change in the ruler -- calling it "physical" is a terrible pun on the word and just confuses both you and your readers.
Special relativity isn't just about the maths, but also providing a consistent *physical* model in every frame.Yes, but one must use words with consistent meanings, avoiding puns.
Tom Roberts
On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 6:31:44â€¯PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 1:05:59â€¯AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Sylvia Else <syl...@email.invalid> wrote:
On 03-Sept-23 4:37 am, RichD wrote:
On September 1, Sylvia Else wrote:
Do you have a clear definition of "real"?
If we do a measurement, which is certainly something real, then special
relativity tells us what the result, also something real, will be. Since
in the widest sense, measurements are all we can ever do, special >> relativity tells us all that we can know.
surement.pdfCheck this, then tell me what he's trying to say: https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/bell/Against_Mea
I can't decipher it.
--
Rich
When we do measurements, we get results.Yes, but only in a very trivial sense.
Experiments need interpretation,
and that interpretation is inevitably theory-laden.
(in all but the most primitive stages of science)
But what was the state of the system before we did the measurement. Shouldn't our theories do more than just tell us what results we'll getYou are of the school that holds that the Moon didn't exist,
when we do a measurement, and have something to say about the state of the system itself?
before you looked at it?
I suppose it would be nice if it did, but how could we ever test such aThat is naive positivism at its worst.
theory, when all we can do are measurements? A theory that goes beyond what can be measured, even in principle, is philosophy.
The whole point of theory is that it goes beyond what can be measured. If you deny that, science gets reduced to a catalogue of observations. (or an 'economic' condensation of such a table, by Mach)
He also raises some objections to the way we treat measurement devices,Yes, that is straightforward Copenhagenianism.
and the things being measured, as if they're somehow fundamentally different.
And, of course, we do. If we treat our measurement device asAKA 'the measurement problem'.
a quantum object, then we need another non-quantum measurement device to
observe the first one, and hence into an infinite regression.
Bohr, intuitively, and Von Neumann, by postulate, cut that short.
The price is spoiling the quantum evolution as described by a Schroedinger's equation.
John Steward Bell objects to that approach, in the ref. cit.,
JanThe problem got even more confounded by the Conway-Kochen
theorem from 2006 (aka. Free Will Theorem). Bell concludes his
article with:
"The big question, in my opinion, is which, if either, of these two precise pictures [i.e. Bohm-de Broglie vs. Ghirardi-Rimini-Weber]
can be redeveloped in a Lorentz invariant way."
It looks like the Conway-Kochen theorem prevents any such theory
from existing. It's also interesting that this theorem does not
assume quantum mechnics, it only assumes three results which
can be verified by experiment.
--"The Free Will Theorem thus shows that any
Jan
such theory, even if it involves a stochastic ele-
ment, must walk the fine line of predicting that for
certain interactions the wave function collapses to
some eigenfunction of the Hamiltonian, without
being able to specify which eigenfunction this is.
If such a theory exists, the authors have no idea
what form it might take."
My vocabulary consists of defining _physical_ to mean a perception via my senses;
[additional personal redefinitions of words ignored]
On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 1:05:59?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:_Mea
Sylvia Else <syl...@email.invalid> wrote:
On 03-Sept-23 4:37 am, RichD wrote:
On September 1, Sylvia Else wrote:
Do you have a clear definition of "real"?
If we do a measurement, which is certainly something real, then
special relativity tells us what the result, also something real,
will be. Since in the widest sense, measurements are all we can
ever do, special relativity tells us all that we can know.
Check this, then tell me what he's trying to say: https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/bell/Against
surement.pdf
I can't decipher it.
--
Rich
When we do measurements, we get results.Yes, but only in a very trivial sense.
Experiments need interpretation,
and that interpretation is inevitably theory-laden.
(in all but the most primitive stages of science)
But what was the state of the system before we did the measurement. Shouldn't our theories do more than just tell us what results we'll get when we do a measurement, and have something to say about the state of the system itself?You are of the school that holds that the Moon didn't exist,
before you looked at it?
I suppose it would be nice if it did, but how could we ever test such a theory, when all we can do are measurements? A theory that goes beyond what can be measured, even in principle, is philosophy.That is naive positivism at its worst.
The whole point of theory is that it goes beyond what can be measured.
If you deny that, science gets reduced to a catalogue of observations.
(or an 'economic' condensation of such a table, by Mach)
He also raises some objections to the way we treat measurement devices, and the things being measured, as if they're somehow fundamentally different.Yes, that is straightforward Copenhagenianism.
And, of course, we do. If we treat our measurement device asAKA 'the measurement problem'.
a quantum object, then we need another non-quantum measurement device to observe the first one, and hence into an infinite regression.
Bohr, intuitively, and Von Neumann, by postulate, cut that short.
The price is spoiling the quantum evolution as described by a Schroedinger's equation.
John Steward Bell objects to that approach, in the ref. cit.,
Jan
The problem got even more confounded by the Conway-Kochen
theorem from 2006 (aka. Free Will Theorem). Bell concludes his
article with:
"The big question, in my opinion, is which, if either, of these two
precise pictures [i.e. Bohm-de Broglie vs. Ghirardi-Rimini-Weber]
can be redeveloped in a Lorentz invariant way."
It looks like the Conway-Kochen theorem prevents any such theory
from existing. It's also interesting that this theorem does not
assume quantum mechnics, it only assumes three results which
can be verified by experiment.
On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 7:37:52?PM UTC+1, RichD wrote:surement.pdf
On September 1, Sylvia Else wrote:
Do you have a clear definition of "real"?Check this, then tell me what he's trying to say: https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/bell/Against_Mea
If we do a measurement, which is certainly something real, then special relativity tells us what the result, also something real, will be. Since in the widest sense, measurements are all we can ever do, special relativity tells us all that we can know.
I can't decipher it.
--
Rich
It's John Bell making a big deal about the 'measurement problem' as in:
what is a measurement? Is a measurement a conscious observation? The
world's leading young physicists, including Dirac and Heisenberg, came up with a model of Quantum mechanics, known as the Copenhagen school model;
and mathematically axiomatized by Von Neumann in his 1932 book:
Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. This was debated very early on; but didn't matter according to Dirac, for example, as long as it's successful as a physical model that gives correct physical results.
This was before quantum field theory which today models particles as
states of a field that extends through out space and time. So the problem
IMO is that some people are stuck in the past; still trying to interpret
QM using a physical picture that is outdated and more limited. Understandably, they find it too difficult to invest their time and energy
in learning about quantum field theory and prefer to remain in their
comfort zone, philosophizing with their equally misguided peers. I have to admit... I haven't studied QM or QFT at even an undergraduate level so the above is just an opinion, ignorant compared to that of an expert ;)
larry harson <larryh...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 7:37:52?PM UTC+1, RichD wrote:surement.pdf
On September 1, Sylvia Else wrote:
Do you have a clear definition of "real"?Check this, then tell me what he's trying to say: https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/bell/Against_Mea
If we do a measurement, which is certainly something real, then special
relativity tells us what the result, also something real, will be. Since
in the widest sense, measurements are all we can ever do, special relativity tells us all that we can know.
I can't decipher it.
--
Rich
It's John Bell making a big deal about the 'measurement problem' as in: what is a measurement? Is a measurement a conscious observation? The world's leading young physicists, including Dirac and Heisenberg, came up with a model of Quantum mechanics, known as the Copenhagen school model; and mathematically axiomatized by Von Neumann in his 1932 book: Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. This was debated very early on; but didn't matter according to Dirac, for example, as long as it's successful as a physical model that gives correct physical results.Bohr, a leading old man, really.
The 'measurement problem' is inherent in quantum mechanics.
Schroedinger dramatised it with his cat paradox.
This was before quantum field theory which today models particles as states of a field that extends through out space and time. So the problem IMO is that some people are stuck in the past; still trying to interpret QM using a physical picture that is outdated and more limited. Understandably, they find it too difficult to invest their time and energy in learning about quantum field theory and prefer to remain in their comfort zone, philosophizing with their equally misguided peers. I have to admit... I haven't studied QM or QFT at even an undergraduate level so the above is just an opinion, ignorant compared to that of an expert ;)QFT doesn't change a thing.
You still need to postulate that the probability
is the square of the amplitude,
Jan
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/bell/Against_Measurement.pdf
I can't decipher it.
In one line: Von Neumann's 'projection postulate' is nonsense,
What is this postulate?
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_formulation_of_quantum_mechanics#:~:text=The%20characteristic%20property%20of%20the,also%20called%20the%20projection%20postulate.&text=Since%20the%20Fi%20F,von%20Neumann%20no%20longer%20holds.>
See under Postulate II.c
My vocabulary consists of defining _physical_ to mean a perception
via my senses; and a _measurement_ as giving a representation to
my perception via a number that others can agree upon.
I define _intrinsically physical_ to mean a measurement that is independent of the state of my measuring apparatus.
On 04-Sept-23 12:46 pm, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 6:39:50â€¯PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 03-Sept-23 4:37 am, RichD wrote:
On September 1, Sylvia Else wrote:When we do measurements, we get results.
Do you have a clear definition of "real"?
If we do a measurement, which is certainly something real, then special >>>> relativity tells us what the result, also something real, will be. Since
in the widest sense, measurements are all we can ever do, special
relativity tells us all that we can know.
Check this, then tell me what he's trying to say:
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/bell/Against_Measurement.pdf
I can't decipher it.
--
Rich
Are you sure about that?It gives you the probability of finding a particle in a particular place
Quantum mechanics says all measurements are uncertain.
Uncertainty is science's central principle.
or state. So you have to measure that probability.
Sylvia.
On September 4, J. J. Lodder wrote:_Measurement.pdf
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/bell/Against
#:~:text=The%20characteristic%20property%20of%20the,also%20called%20the%20projection%20postulate.&text=Since%20the%20Fi%20F,von%20Neumann%20no%20longer%20holds.>I can't decipher it.
In one line: Von Neumann's 'projection postulate' is nonsense,
What is this postulate?
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_formulation_of_quantum_mechanics
See under Postulate II.c
eh?
That's foundational to quantum mechanics: the result of
a measurement is the projection onto an eigenvector.
What's the nonsense?
Bell did say, in an interview, that he was inspired to his theorem
after reading von Neumann's book, and disagreeing with something
there. But he was vague regarding what that was, exactly.
On September 4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/bell/Against_Measurement.pdf
I can't decipher it.
In one line: Von Neumann's 'projection postulate' is nonsense,
What is this postulate?
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_formulation_of_quantum_mechanics#:~:text=The%20characteristic%20property%20of%20the,also%20called%20the%20projection%20postulate.&text=Since%20the%20Fi%20F,von%20Neumann%20no%20longer%20holds.>eh?
See under Postulate II.c
That's foundational to quantum mechanics: the result of
a measurement is the projection onto an eigenvector.
What's the nonsense?
Bell did say, in an interview, that he was inspired to his theorem
after reading von Neumann's book, and disagreeing with something
there. But he was vague regarding what that was, exactly.
On 9/5/23 5:28 PM, larry harson wrote:
My vocabulary consists of defining _physical_ to mean a perception via my senses;Hopeless. Do you seriously claim you have a "_physical_" presence behind
a mirror?
[additional personal redefinitions of words ignored]
Tom Roberts
[...] So the quantum |psi> evolves in two different and incompatible
ways, depending on ill-defined or even arbitrary circumstances.
(where does 'quantum' end and 'classical' begin?)
On 9/7/23 3:11 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
[...] So the quantum |psi> evolves in two different and incompatibleThat's a major issue with the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. For a much more sensible approach, see:
ways, depending on ill-defined or even arbitrary circumstances.
(where does 'quantum' end and 'classical' begin?)
Ballentine, _Quantum_Mechanics,_a_Modern_Development_.
Basically to make a measurement, some classical instrument must be
placed into correlation with the quantum system to be measured, and
since the classical instrument has enormously more degrees of freedom
than the quantum system, it imposes strong restrictions on the quantum system's subsequent evolution -- that is essentially a well-defined and computable "collapse of the wavefunction" of the quantum system.
Tom Roberts
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 5:19:13?PM UTC-7, RichD wrote:st_Measurement.pdf
On September 4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/bell/Again
I can't decipher it.
In one line: Von Neumann's 'projection postulate' is nonsense,
What is this postulate?
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_formulation_of_quantum_mec hanics#:~:text=The%20characteristic%20property%20of%20the,also%20calle d%20the%20projection%20postulate.&text=Since%20the%20Fi%20F,von%20Neum ann%20no%20longer%20holds.>eh?
See under Postulate II.c
That's foundational to quantum mechanics: the result of
a measurement is the projection onto an eigenvector.
What's the nonsense?
The projection relies on certain undefined notions, like what
is "measurement"?
Bell did say, in an interview, that he was inspired to his theorem
after reading von Neumann's book, and disagreeing with something
there. But he was vague regarding what that was, exactly.
IIRC he was bothered by the fact that the Bohm-de Broglie theory
existed. Because its existence contradicted v. Neumann's theorem.
So something was fishy somewhere. I don't know what made Bell
zero in on examining probabilities of collapsing wave functions
of spin-1/2 particles in particular, probably because it's about as
simple and tractable system of this type as you can get?
On 9/7/23 3:11 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
[...] So the quantum |psi> evolves in two different and incompatible
ways, depending on ill-defined or even arbitrary circumstances.
(where does 'quantum' end and 'classical' begin?)
That's a major issue with the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum
mechanics. For a much more sensible approach, see:
Ballentine, _Quantum_Mechanics,_a_Modern_Development_.
Basically to make a measurement, some classical instrument must be
placed into correlation with the quantum system to be measured, and
since the classical instrument has enormously more degrees of freedom
than the quantum system, it imposes strong restrictions on the quantum system's subsequent evolution -- that is essentially a well-defined and computable "collapse of the wavefunction" of the quantum system.
Tom Roberts <tjobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 9/7/23 3:11 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
[...] So the quantum |psi> evolves in two different and incompatible ways, depending on ill-defined or even arbitrary circumstances.
(where does 'quantum' end and 'classical' begin?)
That's a major issue with the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. For a much more sensible approach, see:
Ballentine, _Quantum_Mechanics,_a_Modern_Development_.
Basically to make a measurement, some classical instrument must beCertainly, and hardly news.
placed into correlation with the quantum system to be measured, and
since the classical instrument has enormously more degrees of freedom
than the quantum system, it imposes strong restrictions on the quantum system's subsequent evolution -- that is essentially a well-defined and computable "collapse of the wavefunction" of the quantum system.
Neverthelss, it is not a simple matter
to construct a fully quantum mechanical model
in which a measurement occurs.
(because it must involve statistical mechanics and irreversible
behaviour)
As a rule of the thumb for non-fudamentalists:
a measurement has occurred when something irreversible has happened.
Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 9/7/23 3:11 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
[...] So the quantum |psi> evolves in two different and
incompatible ways, depending on ill-defined or even arbitrary
circumstances. (where does 'quantum' end and 'classical' begin?)
That's a major issue with the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum
mechanics. For a much more sensible approach, see:
Ballentine, _Quantum_Mechanics,_a_Modern_Development_.
Basically to make a measurement, some classical instrument must be
placed into correlation with the quantum system to be measured,
and since the classical instrument has enormously more degrees of
freedom than the quantum system, it imposes strong restrictions on
the quantum system's subsequent evolution -- that is essentially a
well-defined and computable "collapse of the wavefunction" of the
quantum system.
Certainly, and hardly news.
Neverthelss, it is not a simple matter to construct a fully quantum mechanical model in which a measurement occurs. (because it must
involve statistical mechanics and irreversible behaviour)
As a rule of the thumb for non-fudamentalists: a measurement has
occurred when something irreversible has happened. This may in
principle leave a 'permanent' record, like a Geiger counter click,
or a vapour bubble, or a grain of silver having become developable,
etc.
On 9/8/23 3:31 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 9/7/23 3:11 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
[...] So the quantum |psi> evolves in two different and
incompatible ways, depending on ill-defined or even arbitrary
circumstances. (where does 'quantum' end and 'classical' begin?)
That's a major issue with the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum
mechanics. For a much more sensible approach, see:
Ballentine, _Quantum_Mechanics,_a_Modern_Development_.
Basically to make a measurement, some classical instrument must be
placed into correlation with the quantum system to be measured,
and since the classical instrument has enormously more degrees of
freedom than the quantum system, it imposes strong restrictions on
the quantum system's subsequent evolution -- that is essentially a
well-defined and computable "collapse of the wavefunction" of the
quantum system.
Certainly, and hardly news.
Yes, of course, to physicists. But many non-physicists participate here.
Neverthelss, it is not a simple matter to construct a fully quantum mechanical model in which a measurement occurs. (because it must
involve statistical mechanics and irreversible behaviour)
Yes.
As a rule of the thumb for non-fudamentalists: a measurement has
occurred when something irreversible has happened. This may in
principle leave a 'permanent' record, like a Geiger counter click,
or a vapour bubble, or a grain of silver having become developable,
etc.
Yes.
From the original Bell paper all this started with:
"Whoever endows |PSI> with more meaning than is needed for computing observable phenomena is responsible for the consequences . . ."
[...] So the quantum |psi> evolves in two different and incompatible
ways, depending on ill-defined or even arbitrary circumstances.
(where does 'quantum' end and 'classical' begin?)
That's a major issue with the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum
mechanics. For a much more sensible approach, see:
Ballentine, _Quantum_Mechanics,_a_Modern_Development_.
Neverthelss, it is not a simple matter
to construct a fully quantum mechanical model
in which a measurement occurs.
(because it must involve statistical mechanics and irreversible behaviour)
As a rule of the thumb for non-fudamentalists:
a measurement has occurred when something irreversible has happened.
This may in principle leave a 'permanent' record,
like a Geiger counter click, or a vapour bubble,
On September 8, J. J. Lodder wrote:
[...] So the quantum |psi> evolves in two different and incompatible
ways, depending on ill-defined or even arbitrary circumstances.
(where does 'quantum' end and 'classical' begin?)
That's a major issue with the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum
mechanics. For a much more sensible approach, see:
Ballentine, _Quantum_Mechanics,_a_Modern_Development_.
Neverthelss, it is not a simple matter
to construct a fully quantum mechanical model
in which a measurement occurs.
(because it must involve statistical mechanics and irreversible behaviour) As a rule of the thumb for non-fudamentalists:
a measurement has occurred when something irreversible has happened.
This may in principle leave a 'permanent' record,
like a Geiger counter click, or a vapour bubble,
That sounds sensible, but actually begsthe question...
'irreversible' is a CLASSICAL concept.
What does it mean, in a purely Schrodinger quantum context?
You haven't addressed the measurement question, merely
moved the goal posts-
Au contraire, you don't understand the first things
about quantum statistical mechanics,
RichD <r_dela...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On September 8, J. J. Lodder wrote:
[...] So the quantum |psi> evolves in two different and incompatible >> > ways, depending on ill-defined or even arbitrary circumstances.
(where does 'quantum' end and 'classical' begin?)
That's a major issue with the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum
mechanics. For a much more sensible approach, see:
Ballentine, _Quantum_Mechanics,_a_Modern_Development_.
Neverthelss, it is not a simple matter
to construct a fully quantum mechanical model
in which a measurement occurs.
(because it must involve statistical mechanics and irreversible behaviour)
As a rule of the thumb for non-fudamentalists:
a measurement has occurred when something irreversible has happened. This may in principle leave a 'permanent' record,
like a Geiger counter click, or a vapour bubble,
That sounds sensible, but actually begsthe question...Where did you pick up this strange idea?
'irreversible' is a CLASSICAL concept.
You haven't addressed the measurement question, merely
moved the goal posts-
On 9/9/23 12:50 PM, RichD wrote:
You haven't addressed the measurement question, merely
moved the goal posts-
That's the point -- QM itself never had a "measurement problem" (it is
an artifact of the Copenhagen interpretation). Ballentine's approach
avoids all that....
Tom Roberts <tjobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 9/9/23 12:50 PM, RichD wrote:
You haven't addressed the measurement question, merely
moved the goal posts-
That's the point -- QM itself never had a "measurement problem" (it isI may have misremembered,
an artifact of the Copenhagen interpretation). Ballentine's approach
avoids all that....
but iirc there is nothing either new or modern about Ballantine.
It is just what has been called 'the minimal ensemble interpretation',
from time immemorial. (aka the no-nonsense interpretation)
It goes back all the way to Albert Einstein.
In other words, the wave function is just a tool for prediction
of the outcome of experiments. [1]
(if repeated many times on an ensemble of identically prepared ones)
No physical meaning should be attached to the wave function by itself.
Bell says very similar things in the paper already cited,
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 6:42:03â€¯PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 9/7/23 3:11 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
[...] So the quantum |psi> evolves in two different and incompatible ways, depending on ill-defined or even arbitrary circumstances.That's a major issue with the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. For a much more sensible approach, see:
(where does 'quantum' end and 'classical' begin?)
Ballentine, _Quantum_Mechanics,_a_Modern_Development_.
Basically to make a measurement, some classical instrument must be
placed into correlation with the quantum system to be measured, and
since the classical instrument has enormously more degrees of freedom
than the quantum system, it imposes strong restrictions on the quantum system's subsequent evolution -- that is essentially a well-defined and computable "collapse of the wavefunction" of the quantum system.
Tom RobertsThanks, Dr. Roberts.
It seems that's about where Penrose throws his hands in the air with "functional freedom",
or as I read that from his "Fashion, ..., in Physics".
The "classical" being just "a non-spin-statistical non-quantum-mechanical", still has that the
path between emitter and detector is "sum-of-histories" of Fermi/Dirac fermions or Bose/Einstein
bosons, the QM and QED what makes QCD. The "parastatistics" altogether is effectively as
if of a model of stochasticity, though with various laws of large numbers about what shows
up in quantum probabilities besides what's the mathematics today of classical probability
and maybe to the non-standard and with various expectations and uncertainties and laws
of large numbers what make counting arguments in the discrete and get normalized the
continuous, the probability.
It's like "how many drops is an inch of rain".
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/ballentine/
If Ballentine is basically "the statistical ensemble", I think most people already had this
besides whether they'd connected it to "real wave-function collapse" or "anything
different than a stochastic expectation", that "the ensemble" is just whatever adds up.
These days I think it's called "resonance theory" and "structural" or "molecular" chemistry.
(Vis-a-vis wave theory and atomic chemistry.)
Ballentine:
"This demonstrates that there is no conflict with quantum theory in thinking of a particle
as having definite (but, in general, unknown) values of both position and momentum,
contrary to an earlier interpretation of the uncertainty principle." -- 1970
Still though I'll disagree that the measurement isn't itself always interference.
The detector is an interface and there's an exchange and the exchange involves
the soliton and the instanton and the collapse and the particle at the exchange.
Or, a drop that's part of an inch of rain is rather gone before it can be counted,
the rain gauge has a meniscus.
Or, "any wave collapse makes a new one".
It seems that one of the things you point out is that "Multiple-Worlds Interpretation"
is not widely held by most practicing physicists. Then, for Penrose's hand-waving,
or about functional freedom, is to get figured how the whole "120 orders of magnitude"
disagreement these days is to fit gravity back in between GR and QM.
(And, neither is it necessary for "Free Will".)
"Dark Matter" then seems is just "rotating frames are independent", about that
the radial interface is like a wave and exchange, then also the space-contraction
of highly non-linear events, in what's otherwise the usually isotropic space-time,
with the only the very hint of anisotropy that makes fall gravity. ("Dark Matter"
has come up to "six sigmas", so, ....)
Or, I figure that as time proves that opinion, I will come out as right up front.
That's pretty easy though, picking some right giants.
It's a continuum mechanics....
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 7:17:20?PM UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:r)
RichD <r_dela...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On September 8, J. J. Lodder wrote:
[...] So the quantum |psi> evolves in two different and incompatible >> > ways, depending on ill-defined or even arbitrary circumstances.
(where does 'quantum' end and 'classical' begin?)
That's a major issue with the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum
mechanics. For a much more sensible approach, see:
Ballentine, _Quantum_Mechanics,_a_Modern_Development_.
Neverthelss, it is not a simple matter
to construct a fully quantum mechanical model
in which a measurement occurs.
(because it must involve statistical mechanics and irreversible behaviou
As a rule of the thumb for non-fudamentalists:
a measurement has occurred when something irreversible has happened. This may in principle leave a 'permanent' record,
like a Geiger counter click, or a vapour bubble,
That sounds sensible, but actually begsthe question...Where did you pick up this strange idea?
'irreversible' is a CLASSICAL concept.
In classical electrodynamics, you can mathematically model a system of interacting charges using the retarded LW potentials for every charge
within the system. To time reverse it, you have to add an additional free field from outside the system which is the reversed radiation field from
the first system. Put another way: we can't reverse the radiation by reversing the velocities of the charges.
I suspect professional physicists have their differing opinions when
defining a measurement in QM, with the majority sticking with the
Copenhagen school with its claim that the observer is a necessary
condition for a measurement.
As an amateur, I find this definition to be
precise and to the point, leaving its philosophical outcomes for the philosophers to debate over.
On Sunday, 10 September 2023 at 21:25:18 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
The observer has been taken out of the story entirely, in practice.Yeah, sure, these petabytes have made itself by itself.
All he observes are records that have already been made.
(without any human intervention)
They gather about a petabyte a day at LHC, or so I have been told.
No human intervention! Nonononono! Human intervention
would be unphysical. As physics is too primitive to deal
with it...
Indeed, mere -interpretations- are irrelevant for experimentalists.You're a true idiot, for sure.
Only outcomes mattter,
The observer has been taken out of the story entirely, in practice.
All he observes are records that have already been made.
(without any human intervention)
They gather about a petabyte a day at LHC, or so I have been told.
Indeed, mere -interpretations- are irrelevant for experimentalists.
Only outcomes mattter,
You haven't addressed the measurement question, merely
moved the goal posts-
That's the point -- QM itself never had a "measurement problem" (it is
an artifact of the Copenhagen interpretation). Ballentine's approach
avoids all that....
but iirc there is nothing either new or modern about Ballantine.
It is just what has been called 'the minimal ensemble interpretation',
from time immemorial. (aka the no-nonsense interpretation)
In other words, the wave function is just a tool for prediction
of the outcome of experiments. [1]
(if repeated many times on an ensemble of identically prepared ones)
No physical meaning should be attached to the wave function by itself.
Bell says very similar things in the paper already cited,
larry harson <larryh...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 7:17:20?PM UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
RichD <r_dela...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On September 8, J. J. Lodder wrote:
[...] So the quantum |psi> evolves in two different and incompatible
ways, depending on ill-defined or even arbitrary circumstances. >> > (where does 'quantum' end and 'classical' begin?)
That's a major issue with the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum >> mechanics. For a much more sensible approach, see:
Ballentine, _Quantum_Mechanics,_a_Modern_Development_.
r)Neverthelss, it is not a simple matter
to construct a fully quantum mechanical model
in which a measurement occurs.
(because it must involve statistical mechanics and irreversible behaviou
As a rule of the thumb for non-fudamentalists:
a measurement has occurred when something irreversible has happened. This may in principle leave a 'permanent' record,
like a Geiger counter click, or a vapour bubble,
That sounds sensible, but actually begsthe question...Where did you pick up this strange idea?
'irreversible' is a CLASSICAL concept.
In classical electrodynamics, you can mathematically model a system of interacting charges using the retarded LW potentials for every charge within the system. To time reverse it, you have to add an additional free field from outside the system which is the reversed radiation field from the first system. Put another way: we can't reverse the radiation by reversing the velocities of the charges.
Sure, if you put it in by hand.
I'll one-up you with Wheelerâ€“Feynman electrodynamics.
I suspect professional physicists have their differing opinions when defining a measurement in QM, with the majority sticking with the Copenhagen school with its claim that the observer is a necessary condition for a measurement.
The observer has been taken out of the story entirely, in practice.
All he observes are records that have already been made.
(without any human intervention)
They gather about a petabyte a day at LHC, or so I have been told.
On September 9, Tom Roberts wrote:
You haven't addressed the measurement question, merely
moved the goal posts-
That's the point -- QM itself never had a "measurement problem" (it isHow does he explain the double slit experiment?
an artifact of the Copenhagen interpretation). Ballentine's approach avoids all that....
--
Rich
On September 9, Tom Roberts wrote:
RichD wrote:
You haven't addressed the measurement question, merely moved the
goal posts-
That's the point -- QM itself never had a "measurement problem"
(it is an artifact of the Copenhagen interpretation). Ballentine's
approach avoids all that....
How does he explain the double slit experiment?
On 03-Sept-23 4:37 am, RichD wrote:
On September 1, Sylvia Else wrote:
Do you have a clear definition of "real"? If we do a
measurement, which is certainly something real, then special
relativity tells us what the result, also something real, will
be. Since in the widest sense, measurements are all we can ever
do, special relativity tells us all that we can know.
Check this, then tell me what he's trying to say:
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/bell/Against_Measurement.pdf
-- RichI can't decipher it.
When we do measurements, we get results.
But what was the state of the system before we did the measurement.
Shouldn't our theories do more than just tell us what results we'll
get when we do a measurement, and have something to say about the
state of the system itself?
I suppose it would be nice if it did, but how could we ever test
such a theory, when all we can do are measurements? A theory that
goes beyond what can be measured, even in principle, is philosophy.
He also raises some objections to the way we treat measurement
devices, and the things being measured, as if they're somehow
fundamentally different. And, of course, we do. If we treat our
measurement device as a quantum object, then we need another
non-quantum measurement device to observe the first one, and hence
into an infinite regression.
In classical electrodynamics, you can mathematically model a system
of interacting charges using the retarded LW potentials for every
charge within the system. To time reverse it, you have to add an
additional free field from outside the system which is the reversed
radiation field from the first system. Put another way: we can't
reverse the radiation by reversing the velocities of the charges.
I suspect professional physicists have their differing opinions when
defining a measurement in QM, with the majority sticking with the
Copenhagen school with its claim that the observer is a necessary
condition for a measurement.
On 9/9/23 5:30 PM, larry harson wrote:
I suspect professional physicists have their differing opinions when defining a measurement in QM, with the majority sticking with the Copenhagen school with its claim that the observer is a necessary condition for a measurement.Most physicists I know basically ignore it, because in practice the experiments we perform do not involve a human observer -- we use
computers to directly record data to persistent storage, and the human analysts use that.
Is the computer (with its detectors) an "observer"?
You haven't addressed the measurement question, merely moved the
goal posts-
That's the point -- QM itself never had a "measurement problem"
(it is an artifact of the Copenhagen interpretation). Ballentine's
approach avoids all that....
How does he explain the double slit experiment?
If you want a quantum description, you must use QED, and it predicts
that the individual photons accumulate into the interference pattern predicted by the wave equation.
Most physicists I know basically ignore it, because in practice the
experiments we perform do not involve a human observer -- we use
computers to directly record data to persistent storage, and the human
analysts use that.
Is the computer (with its detectors) an "observer"?
From my very casual overview of QM, reading the opinions of Bohr and Heisenberg etc,
I would answer: no, within the Copenhagen school. There is a wave function for an
observer reading the data that calculates the probability of it being some value read.
The computer etc doesn't have a wave function by itself.
On September 11, Tom Roberts wrote:
You haven't addressed the measurement question, merely moved the
goal posts-
That's the point -- QM itself never had a "measurement problem"
(it is an artifact of the Copenhagen interpretation). Ballentine's
approach avoids all that....
How does he explain the double slit experiment?
If you want a quantum description, you must use QED, and it predictsAnd, um, what happens when we place a detector at one slit?
that the individual photons accumulate into the interference pattern predicted by the wave equation.
You completely miss the crux of the double slit riddle. Which also
sits at the heart of the measurement problem.
From your comments, I'm skeptical that Ballentine has tied up
all the loose strings -
--
Rich
On September 11, Tom Roberts wrote:
You haven't addressed the measurement question, merely moved the
goal posts-
That's the point -- QM itself never had a "measurement problem"
(it is an artifact of the Copenhagen interpretation). Ballentine's
approach avoids all that....
How does he explain the double slit experiment?
If you want a quantum description, you must use QED, and it predicts
that the individual photons accumulate into the interference pattern predicted by the wave equation.
And, um, what happens when we place a detector at one slit?
You completely miss the crux of the double slit riddle. Which also
sits at the heart of the measurement problem.
From your comments, I'm skeptical that Ballentine has tied up
all the loose strings -
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 6:41:51?PM UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 9/9/23 5:30 PM, larry harson wrote:
[snipped]
I suspect professional physicists have their differing opinions when defining a measurement in QM, with the majority sticking with the Copenhagen school with its claim that the observer is a necessary condition for a measurement.Most physicists I know basically ignore it, because in practice the experiments we perform do not involve a human observer -- we use
computers to directly record data to persistent storage, and the human analysts use that.
Is the computer (with its detectors) an "observer"?
From my very casual overview of QM, reading the opinions of Bohr and Heisenberg etc, I would answer: no, within the Copenhagen school. There is
a wave function for an observer reading the data that calculates the probability of it being some value read. The computer etc doesn't have a
wave function by itself.
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 8:25:18?PM UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
larry harson <larryh...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 7:17:20?PM UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
RichD <r_dela...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On September 8, J. J. Lodder wrote:
[...] So the quantum |psi> evolves in two different and
incompatible ways, depending on ill-defined or even arbitrary
circumstances.
(where does 'quantum' end and 'classical' begin?)
That's a major issue with the Copenhagen interpretation of
quantum mechanics. For a much more sensible approach, see:
Ballentine, _Quantum_Mechanics,_a_Modern_Development_.
Neverthelss, it is not a simple matter
to construct a fully quantum mechanical model
in which a measurement occurs.
(because it must involve statistical mechanics and irreversible behaviour)
As a rule of the thumb for non-fudamentalists:
a measurement has occurred when something irreversible has happened.
This may in principle leave a 'permanent' record,
like a Geiger counter click, or a vapour bubble,
That sounds sensible, but actually begsthe question...Where did you pick up this strange idea?
'irreversible' is a CLASSICAL concept.
In classical electrodynamics, you can mathematically model a system of interacting charges using the retarded LW potentials for every charge within the system. To time reverse it, you have to add an additional free field from outside the system which is the reversed radiation field from the first system. Put another way: we can't reverse the radiation by reversing the velocities of the charges.
Sure, if you put it in by hand.
I'll one-up you with Wheelerâ€“Feynman electrodynamics.
I think I've misinterpreted your previous comment to RichD:
RichD: 'irreversible' is a CLASSICAL concept.
J Lodder: Where did you pick up this strange idea?
I thought you were implying that 'irreversible' isn't a classical concept; that classical physics is time reversible at its most fundamental level.
I suspect professional physicists have their differing opinions when defining a measurement in QM, with the majority sticking with the Copenhagen school with its claim that the observer is a necessary condition for a measurement.
The observer has been taken out of the story entirely, in practice.
All he observes are records that have already been made.
(without any human intervention)
They gather about a petabyte a day at LHC, or so I have been told.
The key phrase here for me is 'in practice' for applied physicists,
whereas John bell was in the theoretical division of Cern I believe.
On 9/10/23 7:25 PM, RichD wrote:
On September 9, Tom Roberts wrote:
RichD wrote:
You haven't addressed the measurement question, merely moved the
goal posts-
That's the point -- QM itself never had a "measurement problem"
(it is an artifact of the Copenhagen interpretation). Ballentine's
approach avoids all that....
How does he explain the double slit experiment?
One does not need QM to describe that -- classical electrodynamics' wave equation for EM radiation does just fine (for the situation with
trillions of photons).
If you want a quantum description, you must use QED, and it predicts
that the individual photons accumulate into the interference pattern predicted by the wave equation.
On September 11, Tom Roberts wrote:
You haven't addressed the measurement question, merely moved the
goal posts-
That's the point -- QM itself never had a "measurement problem"
(it is an artifact of the Copenhagen interpretation). Ballentine's
approach avoids all that....
How does he explain the double slit experiment?
If you want a quantum description, you must use QED, and it predicts
that the individual photons accumulate into the interference pattern
predicted by the wave equation.
And, um, what happens when we place a detector at one slit?
From your comments, I'm skeptical that Ballentine has tied up
all the loose strings -
Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
One does not need QM to describe [the double silt experiment] --
classical electrodynamics' wave equation for EM radiation does just
fine (for the situation with trillions of photons).
Interference is not a collective effect of many photons interactng.
On 9/1/23 4:01 AM, patdolan wrote:
[...]
How silly. HOW IGNORANT.
Analogy:
Use a ruler to measure the width of a (rectangular) desktop. When laid
down parallel to the front edge you get one value, and when angled
relative to the front edge you get a different (larger) value.
a) did the desk change between these two measurements?
b) did the ruler change between these two measurements?
c) what caused the difference in measurements?
Answers: a) no, b) no, c) the different geometrical relationship between ruler and desktop.
"Time dilation" and "length contraction" are the same -- neither the
object being measured nor the measuring ingots strument changed in any way, but the no materialGEOMETRICAL RELATIONSHIP between them changed.
Tom Roberts
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 7:17:20â€¯PM UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:is the reversed radiation field from the first system. Put another way: we can't reverse the radiation by reversing the velocities of the charges.
RichD <r_dela...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On September 8, J. J. Lodder wrote:
[...] So the quantum |psi> evolves in two different and incompatible
ways, depending on ill-defined or even arbitrary circumstances.
(where does 'quantum' end and 'classical' begin?)
That's a major issue with the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum
mechanics. For a much more sensible approach, see:
Ballentine, _Quantum_Mechanics,_a_Modern_Development_.
Neverthelss, it is not a simple matter
to construct a fully quantum mechanical model
in which a measurement occurs.
(because it must involve statistical mechanics and irreversible behaviour)
As a rule of the thumb for non-fudamentalists:
a measurement has occurred when something irreversible has happened. This may in principle leave a 'permanent' record,
like a Geiger counter click, or a vapour bubble,
That sounds sensible, but actually begsthe question...Where did you pick up this strange idea?
'irreversible' is a CLASSICAL concept.
In classical electrodynamics, you can mathematically model a system of interacting charges using the retarded LW potentials for every charge within the system. To time reverse it, you have to add an additional free field from outside the system which
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 7:17:20â€¯PM UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:is the reversed radiation field from the first system. Put another way: we can't reverse the radiation by reversing the velocities of the charges.
RichD <r_dela...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On September 8, J. J. Lodder wrote:
[...] So the quantum |psi> evolves in two different and incompatible
ways, depending on ill-defined or even arbitrary circumstances.
(where does 'quantum' end and 'classical' begin?)
That's a major issue with the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum
mechanics. For a much more sensible approach, see:
Ballentine, _Quantum_Mechanics,_a_Modern_Development_.
Neverthelss, it is not a simple matter
to construct a fully quantum mechanical model
in which a measurement occurs.
(because it must involve statistical mechanics and irreversible behaviour)
As a rule of the thumb for non-fudamentalists:
a measurement has occurred when something irreversible has happened. This may in principle leave a 'permanent' record,
like a Geiger counter click, or a vapour bubble,
That sounds sensible, but actually begsthe question...Where did you pick up this strange idea?
'irreversible' is a CLASSICAL concept.
In classical electrodynamics, you can mathematically model a system of interacting charges using the retarded LW potentials for every charge within the system. To time reverse it, you have to add an additional free field from outside the system which
On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 9:42:56â€¯AM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 4:01:07â€¯AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
RichD <r_dela...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On September 1, Sylvia Else wrote:
Do you have a clear definition of "real"?
If we do a measurement, which is certainly something real, then special
relativity tells us what the result, also something real, will be. Since
in the widest sense, measurements are all we can ever do, special relativity tells us all that we can know.
Check this, then tell me what he's trying to say: https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/bell/Against_Measurement.pdf
I can't decipher it.In one line: Von Neumann's 'projection postulate' is nonsense,
JanYou know, Bohm and de Broglie's interpretation of "real wave function" has really
seen quite a revival and what was these days all "Multiple-Worlds" and "all stochastic"
looks more like "mechanism results observed stochastic, though, also there's some
input of extra what were hidden variables or parameters that result anything called
non-local, entangled, or after resonance/wave duality above particle/wave duality".
"Multiple-Worlds" is like "Dark Matter": a popular, widely received theory in a specialized
sub-field of physics that's has no observables, offers no mechanism, and is unscientific.
Then these days "resonance theory" and "MOND" and such, though I'm for fall gravity,
offer observables and mechanisms to replace such what were popular if useless notions.
In other news James Webb Space Telescope more firmly paint-canned to round-file theOne of the most striking results of quark physics is "asymptotic freedom", that, the center
inflationary cosmology, which though has been coming a long time, since CMBR and 2MASS
and such, and the sky survey having a bit more context than 19 plates exposed in Egypt.
of the nucleus, isn't asymptotically bound, but asymptotically free. It belies all finite inputs,
but it's like a total fall-gravity adds up to it, the strong nuclear force, so making it simple
that gravity's a force again in quantum theory and quantum field theory.
In mathematics the study of "symmetry flex" is also called "quasi-invariant measure theory".
Also it's called continuity laws and as a superset of conservation laws, and physics is an open system.
The idea of a unified field theory, is that they all share one space-time, the fields of the forces,
for basically the kinetic and charge and the radiant nuclear, that these days its strong nuclear
for the kinetic, charge, then weak for strong nuclear and electroweak for charge, for radiant nuclear.
In this way the force carriers among this sort of tripos exchange in the field that are really potential fields,
making for a neat descriptive framework of all the things, for a "grand unified theory" that's a
"unified field theory" that's a "gauge theory" that's a "quantum mechanics" and it's a "continuum mechanics".
This is that the kinetic and charge exchange in the magnetic, and light and the radiant nuclear are the
other side, about a deconstructive account of things like the optoelectronic effects, in terms of energy,
what are otherwise exchanges, helping explain state and change, about a theory.
In the quark and gluon physics, which according to experimental physics are a watch's guts,
asymptotic freedom is like the cosmological constant and mass-energy equivalence in the rotational,
one of the great things to know.
If you're into that, ....
On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 8:23:11â€¯PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 9:42:56â€¯AM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 4:01:07â€¯AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
RichD <r_dela...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On September 1, Sylvia Else wrote:
Do you have a clear definition of "real"?
If we do a measurement, which is certainly something real, then special
relativity tells us what the result, also something real, will be. Since
in the widest sense, measurements are all we can ever do, special relativity tells us all that we can know.
Check this, then tell me what he's trying to say: https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/bell/Against_Measurement.pdf
I can't decipher it.In one line: Von Neumann's 'projection postulate' is nonsense,
JanYou know, Bohm and de Broglie's interpretation of "real wave function" has really
seen quite a revival and what was these days all "Multiple-Worlds" and "all stochastic"
looks more like "mechanism results observed stochastic, though, also there's some
input of extra what were hidden variables or parameters that result anything called
non-local, entangled, or after resonance/wave duality above particle/wave duality".
"Multiple-Worlds" is like "Dark Matter": a popular, widely received theory in a specialized
sub-field of physics that's has no observables, offers no mechanism, and is unscientific.
Then these days "resonance theory" and "MOND" and such, though I'm for fall gravity,
offer observables and mechanisms to replace such what were popular if useless notions.
In other news James Webb Space Telescope more firmly paint-canned to round-file theOne of the most striking results of quark physics is "asymptotic freedom", that, the center
inflationary cosmology, which though has been coming a long time, since CMBR and 2MASS
and such, and the sky survey having a bit more context than 19 plates exposed in Egypt.
of the nucleus, isn't asymptotically bound, but asymptotically free. It belies all finite inputs,
but it's like a total fall-gravity adds up to it, the strong nuclear force, so making it simple
that gravity's a force again in quantum theory and quantum field theory.
In mathematics the study of "symmetry flex" is also called "quasi-invariant measure theory".
Also it's called continuity laws and as a superset of conservation laws, and physics is an open system.
The idea of a unified field theory, is that they all share one space-time, the fields of the forces,
for basically the kinetic and charge and the radiant nuclear, that these days its strong nuclear
for the kinetic, charge, then weak for strong nuclear and electroweak for charge, for radiant nuclear.
In this way the force carriers among this sort of tripos exchange in the field that are really potential fields,
making for a neat descriptive framework of all the things, for a "grand unified theory" that's a
"unified field theory" that's a "gauge theory" that's a "quantum mechanics" and it's a "continuum mechanics".
This is that the kinetic and charge exchange in the magnetic, and light and the radiant nuclear are the
other side, about a deconstructive account of things like the optoelectronic effects, in terms of energy,
what are otherwise exchanges, helping explain state and change, about a theory.
In the quark and gluon physics, which according to experimental physics are a watch's guts,
asymptotic freedom is like the cosmological constant and mass-energy equivalence in the rotational,
one of the great things to know.
If you're into that, ....
Ah, it's like the fall gravity point, is the asymptotic freedom,
the other fall gravity point, occluding it in the universe,
its pressure term, eclipsing it.
Here it's now "impulse pressure" as a mathematical object,
one infinity long ray or spike area one called Dirac impulse amount,
in the vertical, and a unit area also one bead, opposite it the origin:
the linear and pressure term, the constants for fall terms,
it's not those under pressure.
"Eclipse darts: like jet bundles also droplets".
Does it have have vectors and arrows? Yes, it is vectors and arrows,
and complementing angle and the bivector with two arrows and double arrow, the area one together in pressure, pressure sort unit.
Here "the sort" is "the gradient", for example, there is one.
I.e. "momentum and the true centrifugal: is free and at peace".
"Free: as if frozen in a moment of time. At peace: stateful."
"Least action: fall gravity."
The idea that these are the terms gets into the states of matter,
solids and liquids and gases, airs, airs and mixtures of airs, water,
the ground, "the states of matter", Einstein has it as "a large differential system, differential meaning moving together in time, free and at peace".
Then he says "and inertial systems are in effect in units in time, kinetic".
Not that I would make him say so - if I could beat him to it.
I.e. he could be "well obviously that fully included in the entire intent of what I said".
I could smile at that, what is there to do but smile. I rely on Einstein completely
and bring him, though I say only exactly what he says and where.
So, with that for example any Einstein's spin foam, kinetic, then, the Einstein synchronizing,
is in effect in moving terms and in meeting terms. The disastrous failure effects but rather
the notion in upping the ceiling, the only reason spin foam is there is to wash all the way down,
Einstein's could be like "and my entire Dirac positronic sea that Dirac says, and spin foam,
come out as positronic sea and what must be in flow, whether internally there is more
the only less isotonic spin flow: that 'the spin flow's the outside flow, but it's only the
least draft, as what the draft indicates a head, of what could be air, that if it flows all
the way away, it obviously flows, Einstein's's "old quantum mechanics or new", Einstein's
along, "SR or GR".
So, tiny flow draft bundle, and, "the most usual notion of a push gravity, that the outside
universe on the outside of a body, equips the mechanism of force of pull gravity, that
is according to "mutual attraction and gravitation", that massy bodies according to
the theory exactly associate according to large inverse square, as what gravity is
the overall flow of orbits in weightless environments, which is according to "the Geodesy".
(The Geodesy is the world project that went around the world and established the variation,
in the location, of gravity's constant, the geodetic survey or the reference of the world,
at about pretty big distances or "an average of gravity over the Earth", they actually went
out I think and sort of surveyed must have had some "geodetic survey", it's effectively
that there's g and 9.8 meters per second then there's constant g under the square
root of that, measured, it was found to vary only in about the last few units, or
9. dot dot to 9. dot dot, mostly the same but up and down in hundredths and tenths,
gives a constant to the "outside flow", this spin foam in quantum gravity, which in
effect leaves bodies internally weightless.)
Einstein's as "spin foam? Sure, why no spin foam or spin foam, it's the same to my
kinetic or rather inertial systems it rinses the spin foam as gravity is the law. Yes
it's same as any other flow gradient out terms."
I.e., the rest of science is "not Einstein's", "Am I in a fishbowl, this is my bird cage."
It's like "Einstein, at the end of all your theory, I got a picture", then he's like
"it's your picture".
Similarly Einstein could be like "you know I only have two definitions and one of
them is kinetic, anything we both know doesn't apply doesn't apply, I could be
lying if I said I never said the other way - of course as you would know that yourself.
And thusly "Einstein: "SR _or_ GR".
Here it's GR, then SR.
But, here just means from the source, of what to SR is the image, the picture.
Which is also what it looks like, and seeing it.
The light's are out in GR: and really are out, that absorbance, of light, must be under "sustained exposure".
This is not say much "rays" as "a ray, a beam, rays".
Light-like, ....
And Einstein's as "see, light speed", while at the same time, as it absorbs, is continued reflection, what absorbed, in the cloud.
Einstein: "What's your theorem?" "Just remove my name, it's their theorem."
See, when Einstein's theories, become theory, besides his theory, is the theories together, and extended, and theories besides each other, like
SR and GR, where "SR is light-like at all because it's the constant", and
GR is "this is a kinetic world for example electrodifferential", for example a large wheel built into a mountain and using lightning to spin it around.
So, now it: "Einstein: Einstein's theories: Special Relativity, light speed is
constant, General Relativity: inertial systems are massy bodies, either or both, together my way, Maxwell from rest also at c, in a perfect conductor".
I think if Einstein was alive today, he'd say "what's that tremendous noise".
Then at night image, "the sky is entirely filled with satellites and the city light
leaves no stars", Einstein today, "My God cars are giant in the future."
"How's my theory doing?" -- what I like to imagine Einstein would say,
if I hope a robot sort of Einstein, which I do not, except "Einstein, Einstein's theories, dot dot dot".
I mean in all good faith he has "those are exactly the terms", that
images pass at passing distance and looks pass at looking distance.
I.e., images pass at 120, look passes at 60, two-way 60, miles per hours, any two trains or two cars passing two-way, passing, each at 60.
Then, to catch up to a train, or pass the coffee from one train to
the other train, is that the train's do not meet at all, they pass,
or would theoretically compress them to their mirror image,
it's the usual mode of civic cooperation the utter importance of
going opposite ways in the same way, not looking at the pass
but with the eyes on the road.
Still, taking the pass, involves only taking a look, then a look
over a limited moment or a snapshot, "passing at 60 miles per hour",
about how to pass a cup of coffee, or tea, from the train going one-way
to the train going the other way.
The idea is that the transfer happens as close to the front as possible, reaching for the look, the automatic waiter is standing exactly where there will
pass or meet, that of course despite how fast the actual pass is, theoretically the automatic waiter has time whle everything else on
the car is frozen in time, passing, as they fully pass each other,
obviously symmetrical throughout, identical train cars, as if both
were at the station, only one instant for the duration of "slowly passing", which of course is length over 120, miles per hour.
I.e., passing in opposite direction, they are already miles apart,
looking back.
Of course, it's never actually frozen in time unless the direction or passage of cars, are going same or different direction, how they
catch up and slow down. No active control look, here is that the
information from the look, is directly connected to all the terms
of the steer, according to that "any coffee cup so passed would
get a 120 MPH acceleration", with acceleration spread out in the
abstract time.
Then, this is a usual brief second or "0.2, about a fifth of a second,
or a tenth, look time, where 2 is reaction time", that is whether longer
or shorter looks, affect reactions, what be the reactions as "steer" and "stop". That is, the information, according to the time, has that
"5 mph could pass the cup, maybe not 10 mph".
Or "everybody stops at the window."
There is a general idea though that you can get on the train,
accelerate with the train, then walk into the car, and get the
cup of coffee, and get off when it stops, that getting on and
getting off, the train, is defined as an entire train car or any two
cars or carriers, is that objects that accelerate together rest
together. (And decelerate, rest together, falling in orbit together,
parting and meeting, rest together. Meeting in passing,
I.e., two twins that pass each other regularly, also come to
rest, that combined acceleration and rest accumulates.
If they stop, ....
And when!
I know I can make pressure in radio space with an antenna in a vacuum, ....
(It directly attenuates in the air.)
These days it's called current.
"Time is always stopped. And then it goes...."
Time only slows, ..., and then it goes.
Time always stops when any two objects pass.
Once!
Then, information seems in looks, where looks are directional.
"Sensory information."
So, Einstein and twin primes is we are all twin primes of course, and work out in effect whether elapsed
that the twin prime of the planets have not so much necessarily things could go so fast to change the times,
as that there are times that are very very very long ago.
In SR acceleration it's that "SR's acceleration potential is zero".
It's kinetic, when kinetic is inertial, ..., that though can also be added, in the sense of that
"objects in GR are free if they don't emit", putting objects into the theory "yes these are
GR's objects, I expect same when the light's on", in fact you can compute them, about,
while also my SR interpretation has potential-free imaging, free of potentials or as the
all classical, indeed to the limits of the theory.
The difference between running it and having one? A routine?
So, the reason why I offer this, and it's varied: here is that "objects that accelerate together
are in time together".
"Fall gravity: free weightless environment."
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 307 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 71:31:10 |
Calls: | 6,915 |
Files: | 12,380 |
Messages: | 5,432,121 |