• On Length Contraction.

    From =?UTF-8?Q?Guillermo_Garc=c3=ada_Roj@21:1/5 to All on Thu Aug 31 20:54:43 2023
    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?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dono.@21:1/5 to All on Thu Aug 31 21:23:04 2023
    On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 7:54:48 PM UTC-7, Guillermo García 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.
    What will happen?
    Will it experience length contraction?

    Special Relativity domain of application stops at the P[anck scale

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Dono. on Thu Aug 31 22:30:40 2023
    On Friday, 1 September 2023 at 06:23:07 UTC+2, Dono. wrote:

    Special Relativity domain of application stops at the P[anck scale

    And your mumble of muons is worthless. They don't
    even have their frames of reference.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to garciarojas@gmail.com on Fri Sep 1 10:13:47 2023
    Guillermo Garca Rojas C. <garciarojas@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.
    What will happen?
    Will it experience length contraction?

    You should try to understand that 'Planck-length'
    is not an actual length of anything.
    It is a scale,

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Fri Sep 1 01:39:30 2023
    On Friday, 1 September 2023 at 10:13:50 UTC+2, 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.
    What will happen?
    Will it experience length contraction?
    You should try to understand that 'Planck-length'
    is not an actual length of anything.
    It is a scale,

    You should also try to understand that combining
    words into claims with some sense is a skill from
    outside of the tale of physicists. They're simply
    untrained in that.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From patdolan@21:1/5 to Sylvia Else on Fri Sep 1 02:01:31 2023
    On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 1:49:07 AM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
    On 01-Sept-23 12:54 pm, Guillermo García 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.
    What will happen?
    Will it experience length contraction?
    Nothing experiences length contraction. It is something measured by relatively moving observers, not something that happens to things that
    are moving fast.

    Sylvia.
    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
    are a solipsist.

    The subject really and actually does not experience it's own length contraction. But the subject really and actually does experience the object's length contraction. That is why relativity is either many-worlds theory, or a dialethic theory. Stick to
    tensors. You have no talent for philosophy.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Sylvia Else on Fri Sep 1 02:12:55 2023
    On Friday, 1 September 2023 at 10:49:07 UTC+2, Sylvia Else wrote:
    On 01-Sept-23 12:54 pm, Guillermo García 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.
    What will happen?
    Will it experience length contraction?
    Nothing experiences length contraction. It is something measured by relatively moving observers, not something that happens to things that
    are moving fast.

    The measurement result is (allegedly): if it moves fast - it
    happens to it. Do you deny the holy measurement result,
    lady? What kind of heresy is it?

    BTW - how do You usually call measurements that don't
    reflect what really happens? Aren't such measurements
    called "erroneous" in Your church?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Sylvia Else@21:1/5 to All on Fri Sep 1 18:49:03 2023
    On 01-Sept-23 12:54 pm, Guillermo García 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.
    What will happen?
    Will it experience length contraction?

    Nothing experiences length contraction. It is something measured by
    relatively moving observers, not something that happens to things that
    are moving fast.

    Sylvia.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Fri Sep 1 11:15:16 2023
    Le 01/09/2023 à 04:54, Guillermo García Rojas C. a écrit :
    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?

    No, in HIS referential, its proper length is invariant.

    But it still poses a problem if we admit a huge
    contracted molecule whose longitudinal length seen from another frame of reference is a thousand times smaller than the Planck length.

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Richard Hachel on Fri Sep 1 04:53:31 2023
    On Friday, 1 September 2023 at 13:15:19 UTC+2, Richard Hachel wrote:
    Le 01/09/2023 à 04:54, Guillermo García Rojas C. a écrit :
    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?
    No, in HIS referential, its proper length is invariant.

    Well, being a particle it's too dumb to
    object, of course. Real observers doing
    real measurements, however, tend to
    ignore your insane visions of what is
    "proper".

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Sylvia Else@21:1/5 to Richard Hachel on Fri Sep 1 22:03:03 2023
    On 01-Sept-23 9:15 pm, Richard Hachel wrote:

    But it still poses a problem if we admit a huge
     contracted molecule whose longitudinal length seen from another frame
    of reference is a thousand times smaller than the Planck length.

    R.H.

    Why?

    Sylvia.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Roberts@21:1/5 to patdolan on Fri Sep 1 10:09:08 2023
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mitchrae3323@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Fri Sep 1 09:56:37 2023
    On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 8:09:15 AM UTC-7, 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

    Which of the twins converging or diverging in space equal
    would have their atoms contracted?
    No. Space contraction has never happened.
    How has it been measured in an accelerator?
    How would we measure what the particle sees?
    It is just an assumption that has never belonged.
    This is space myth.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Fri Sep 1 12:27:04 2023
    On Friday, 1 September 2023 at 17:09:15 UTC+2, 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.

    Yeah. Analogy: simply screw the measurement up and you
    will get something stupid; don't you know?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RichD@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Fri Sep 1 12:42:33 2023
    On September 1, Tom Roberts wrote:
    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.

    ********************************************
    Date : August 15, 2023
    Author: Tom Roberts
    Group: sci.physics.relativity

    Instead of a solid disc, consider a set of many long and thin isosceles triangles with their apexes all at the center, and their bases at the circumference, such that when not rotating they fill the disk (with a
    slightly jagged circumference). Assume each triangle is able to resist
    any centrifugal force. Then when the collection rotates, gaps form
    between the triangles, due to the "length contraction" of their bases. ********************************************


    --
    Rich

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mitchrae3323@gmail.com@21:1/5 to All on Fri Sep 1 18:26:41 2023
    What about your car does it contract and expand?
    No. The universe is not contracting. It can only
    expand.

    Space contraction is ancient as science that
    has never belonged.

    Mitchell Raemsch

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ross Finlayson@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Fri Sep 1 18:21:09 2023
    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.
    What will happen?
    Will it experience length contraction?
    You should try to understand that 'Planck-length'
    is not an actual length of anything.
    It is a scale,

    Jan

    Actually it's a "regime" the "trans-Planckian", about "running constants".

    I imagine you're familiar with the idea that superstrings are just twice
    as smaller than atoms as atoms are smaller than us, and it's just about
    the fact that after electron physics and atomic theory of elements,
    because transmutation of the weak forces take so long with respect
    to light going so fast, that superstrings are just an effectively fine grain of a continuous medium.

    Then Planck length and "why are Angstroms kind of a physical unit" is
    just about the five or so orders of magnitude around the scale on the
    order of the size of the hydrogen atom, or iron, say.

    If you want to study Einstein's theory there's "Out of My Later Years",
    it's sort of his last word on what "the Einstein's theories of relativity" are, according to Einstein.

    So anyways, in particle physics, everything's a particle, though sometimes there's talk here about "beams", but everything's a particle, anyways,
    there aren't particles that small, except as part of larger particles.

    Then, "space contraction" is that idea that the telephone pole fits in the garage.
    (Then explodes it, but, ....)

    You must've heard of conservation of momentum, but you should also
    know "physics is an open system".

    In the really, really small, length and mass are kind of the same.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hertz@21:1/5 to Sylvia Else on Fri Sep 1 19:24:00 2023
    On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 5:49:07 AM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote:
    On 01-Sept-23 12:54 pm, Guillermo García 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.
    What will happen?
    Will it experience length contraction?
    Nothing experiences length contraction. It is something measured by 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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From patdolan@21:1/5 to Richard Hertz on Fri Sep 1 19:42:38 2023
    On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 7:24:03 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
    On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 5:49:07 AM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote:
    On 01-Sept-23 12:54 pm, Guillermo García 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.
    What will happen?
    Will it experience length contraction?
    Nothing experiences length contraction. It is something measured by 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.
    Yup.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From patdolan@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Fri Sep 1 19:40:29 2023
    On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 8:09:15 AM UTC-7, 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.
    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-
    monotonic function ( see the Lorentz contraction velocity article on wiki...oh wait...Dirk cancelled it ) 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. You have been taking those Minchumpski spacetime diagrams too seriously, Tom Roberts.

    "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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul Alsing@21:1/5 to patdolan on Fri Sep 1 20:41:17 2023
    On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 7:42:40 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
    On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 7:24:03 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
    On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 5:49:07 AM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote:
    On 01-Sept-23 12:54 pm, Guillermo García 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.
    What will happen?
    Will it experience length contraction?
    Nothing experiences length contraction. It is something measured by 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.

    Yup.

    Nope.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Fri Sep 1 22:09:42 2023
    On Saturday, 2 September 2023 at 05:41:20 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 7:42:40 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
    On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 7:24:03 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
    On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 5:49:07 AM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote:
    On 01-Sept-23 12:54 pm, Guillermo García 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.
    What will happen?
    Will it experience length contraction?
    Nothing experiences length contraction. It is something measured by 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.

    Yup.
    Nope.

    Of course it is, poor trash. Time is (the own definition of your idiot
    guru) what clocks indicate, the clocks indicate t'=t (anyone can check
    GPS, TAI, UTC), game over. Common sense was warning your idiot
    guru.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Sylvia Else@21:1/5 to Richard Hertz on Sat Sep 2 15:28:08 2023
    On 02-Sept-23 12:24 pm, Richard Hertz wrote:
    On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 5:49:07 AM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote:
    On 01-Sept-23 12:54 pm, Guillermo García 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.
    What will happen?
    Will it experience length contraction?
    Nothing experiences length contraction. It is something measured by
    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, 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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hertz@21:1/5 to Sylvia Else on Fri Sep 1 22:52:32 2023
    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".

    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?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Sylvia Else@21:1/5 to Richard Hertz on Sat Sep 2 16:29:52 2023
    On 02-Sept-23 3:52 pm, Richard Hertz wrote:
    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".

    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ross Finlayson@21:1/5 to Sylvia Else on Sat Sep 2 00:17:43 2023
    On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 11:29:56 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
    On 02-Sept-23 3:52 pm, Richard Hertz wrote:
    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".

    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.

    Or gravitational waves.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Ross Finlayson on Sat Sep 2 11:43:42 2023
    Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 1:13:50?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Guillermo Garca 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.
    What will happen?
    Will it experience length contraction?
    You should try to understand that 'Planck-length'
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Richard Hertz on Sat Sep 2 11:43:43 2023
    Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:

    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".

    Try it with an atom,

    Jan

    --
    "Aber haben Sie Eine gesehen? (Ernst Mach)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Sylvia Else on Sat Sep 2 02:58:13 2023
    On Saturday, 2 September 2023 at 07:28:13 UTC+2, Sylvia Else wrote:
    On 02-Sept-23 12:24 pm, Richard Hertz wrote:
    On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 5:49:07 AM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote:
    On 01-Sept-23 12:54 pm, Guillermo García 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.
    What will happen?
    Will it experience length contraction?
    Nothing experiences length contraction. It is something measured by
    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 real

    But You don't do it, You just imagine it.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Sat Sep 2 11:19:32 2023
    Le 02/09/2023 à 07:28, Sylvia Else a écrit :
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lou@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Sat Sep 2 06:05:37 2023
    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

    That’s a good one Tom.
    So you are saying that I can measure time with my ruler?
    Funny that. I’ve got my old wooden ruler out...and it doesn’t give
    me the time??!!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From patdolan@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Sat Sep 2 07:01:24 2023
    On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 2:58:16 AM UTC-7, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
    On Saturday, 2 September 2023 at 07:28:13 UTC+2, Sylvia Else wrote:
    On 02-Sept-23 12:24 pm, Richard Hertz wrote:
    On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 5:49:07 AM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote:
    On 01-Sept-23 12:54 pm, Guillermo García 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.
    What will happen?
    Will it experience length contraction?
    Nothing experiences length contraction. It is something measured by
    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?
    This is a very nice piece of reasoning, Maciej. Thank you. I shall use it often.

    If we do a measurement, which is certainly something real
    But You don't do it, You just imagine it.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Sat Sep 2 07:13:14 2023
    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

    Sure, it's the same: complete ineptness in the
    field of measuring.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From patdolan@21:1/5 to Richard Hachel on Sat Sep 2 07:19:48 2023
    On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 4:19:35 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
    Le 02/09/2023 à 07:28, Sylvia Else a écrit :
    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.
    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
    is not male, when biological measurement says otherwise. There are several other categories of knowledge in which measurement plays little or no part. Sylvia is living proof of the philosophical contention that "idea" is the primary stuff of reality and
    that "material" is merely and emergent quality of idea.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Roberts@21:1/5 to patdolan on Sat Sep 2 10:27:23 2023
    On 9/1/23 9:40 PM, patdolan wrote:
    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.

    You simply do not understand SR. The ruler does NOT "contract", nor does
    the universe. What "contracts" are MEASUREMENTS, via the requisite
    geometrical projection, as in the desktop analogy.

    Tom Roberts

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Roberts@21:1/5 to Lou on Sat Sep 2 10:29:38 2023
    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

    That’s a good one Tom.
    So you are saying that I can measure time with my ruler?

    No. Here "the same" means they are also geometrical projections.

    Tom Roberts

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hertz@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Sat Sep 2 10:56:46 2023
    On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 6:43:46 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, smell it and, PARTICULARLY, MEASURE IT "HANDS ON".
    Try it with an atom,

    Jan

    Everything 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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mitchrae3323@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Sat Sep 2 11:27:57 2023
    On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 8:29:47 AM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
    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

    That’s a good one Tom.
    So you are saying that I can measure time with my ruler?
    No. Here "the same" means they are also geometrical projections.

    Tom Roberts

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mitchrae3323@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Richard Hertz on Sat Sep 2 11:39:30 2023
    On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 10:56:50 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
    On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 6:43:46 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, smell
    it and, PARTICULARLY, MEASURE IT "HANDS ON".
    Try it with an atom,

    Jan
    Everything 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.

    That is from science collecting data. Einstein knew better.
    Your statistical averages of data are not significant order
    in his Unified field. They are the lowest in the unified field.
    Energy and gravity and time are the core field..
    Einstein found the Unified field but overlooked what it was.
    He saw at contractile curvature Energy builds gravity strength that slows time...
    Motion slows time secondary.

    Mitchell Raemsch

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RichD@21:1/5 to Sylvia Else on Sat Sep 2 11:37:49 2023
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RichD@21:1/5 to Richard Hertz on Sat Sep 2 11:44:47 2023
    On September 1, Richard Hertz wrote:
    For me, something is real if I can observe it, sense it, TOUCHT IT, smell it and,
    PARTICULARLY, MEASURE IT "HANDS ON".

    Is electric current real?

    Touch an electric stove, you get burned, you measure temperature.
    Listen to a radio broadcast, you hear audio.
    Attach an ammeter, you observe a needle deflect.

    In none of these, do you see or smell electrons in motion.
    Hence current isn't real.

    See why relativity IS A PILE OF CRAP?

    And electrical engineering - it's all INDIRECT, like relativity -

    --
    Rich

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ross Finlayson@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Sat Sep 2 11:54:48 2023
    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 Planck Length, and
    you accelerate it at 99.999999999999% of the speed of light.
    What will happen?
    Will it experience length contraction?
    You should try to understand that 'Planck-length'
    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

    Every 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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ross Finlayson@21:1/5 to Ross Finlayson on Sat Sep 2 12:18:00 2023
    On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 11:54:51 AM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson 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 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.
    What will happen?
    Will it experience length contraction?
    You should try to understand that 'Planck-length'
    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
    Every 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.


    These days it's "SR, Special Relativity, is local" and "RoS, Relativity of Simultaneity, is extra-local".

    There's a usual notion that "intelligence", can effect "information", with the usual
    definition of "information", after the usual definition of "entropy".

    I.e., the, "principle of least action", is, "principle of least action: no thought required".

    There's no privileged reference frame: there are always at least two.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Ross Finlayson on Sat Sep 2 22:37:22 2023
    Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@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 Garca 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.
    What will happen?
    Will it experience length contraction?
    You should try to understand that 'Planck-length'
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ross Finlayson@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Sat Sep 2 14:32:39 2023
    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:
    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.
    What will happen?
    Will it experience length contraction?
    You should try to understand that 'Planck-length'
    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



    Yeah it's like a ton of people have no idea what derivations went into what was
    presented to them as SR and then they think that SR is somehow privileged when really all the time it was just an approximation after the kinetic and all washed
    into the thermo second law kitchen sink.

    It's like they don't know where their food comes from just that there are some outlets
    that provide what looks like really simple food but really is highly processed food.


    They don't even know that e = mc^2 is just the first term in an expansion for K.E.
    and pretty much think that because it was made simple for mathematics of flat circuits that it's fundamental, when really it's not even general.

    It's just something they were never made aware of then that it's up to each to open their own minds and keep it open, which plenty of people don't.

    They're not theoretical physicists ....


    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).

    The Mach-ian: is kind of like the Archimedean. Archimedes' "finite, infinite, bounded,
    finite, infinite again" is as for Mach's "absolute, relative, absolute, relative, total".

    So, when you hear about something like "total field theory" or any kind of theory with
    a universe and a theory of everything about it, like Einstein's ideas of a total field
    theory and his storied developments that over time started with a brief predictive
    analysis for SR that Planck et alia and et all of us found so successful, there's also
    that Einstein's later developments, in light of the field's and his own, resulted that
    Einstein says "SR is local and it's after GR in differential inertial-systems again".

    It's like if Einstein browsed Baez' "crackpot contributions to foundations of physics",
    Einstein would be like "yeah I'm pretty much all of this, but, I won't be made a crank".

    So, the Mach-ian is about the "point, local, global, total", and it's about quantization
    which is after the discrete and continuous in mathematics and what results something
    tractable to usual devices and to usual narratives.

    That said, SR and its refinements today, is largely a simpler and closed non-logical
    or that it's defined instead of derived, rule-set, which makes some computations
    of things like the behavior of large linear arrays of systolic digital devices, or various
    timings over distance of transmissions of media, simpler, but, it's incomplete, and,
    in various what are to it "highly non-linear" milieu, dominated by other effects.

    So, over time, the energy and configuration of experiment has refined, and, reduced,
    what are the results of observer/sampling/measurement, effects, the interactions,
    and, modern physics includes theories of running constants and things like superstring
    theory are all about the mathematical theories of the continuous and discrete and
    after Archimedes the vanishing non-zero and unbounded very-large or infinitesimals
    and infinities, as about the Mach-ian and what's the point, local, global, and total.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to RichD on Sun Sep 3 13:01:03 2023
    RichD <r_delaney2001@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_Measu
    rement.pdf

    I can't decipher it.

    In one line: Von Neumann's 'projection postulate' is nonsense,

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Ross Finlayson on Sun Sep 3 13:01:05 2023
    Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@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-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
    [ramblings]

    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ross Finlayson@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Sun Sep 3 09:15:02 2023
    On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 4:01:08 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    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-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
    [ramblings]

    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

    In one four-vector, "multipole moment".

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ross Finlayson@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Sun Sep 3 09:42:53 2023
    On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 4:01:07 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_Measu
    rement.pdf

    I can't decipher it.
    In one line: Von Neumann's 'projection postulate' is nonsense,

    Jan



    You 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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ross Finlayson@21:1/5 to Ross Finlayson on Sun Sep 3 10:28:01 2023
    On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 9:42:56 AM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
    On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 4:01:07 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_Measu
    rement.pdf

    I can't decipher it.
    In one line: Von Neumann's 'projection postulate' is nonsense,

    Jan
    You 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.


    Of course, the local ephemeris is Parameterized-Post-Newtonian according to Caltech's JPL,
    and while GPS employs the principles of General Relativity, it's as much that space corrections
    come down as time corrections go up, according to onboard clocks.

    There's that and that "gravity always points at the source not the image".


    So, after a theory of fall gravity unifying gravity with field theory,
    and in the Mach-ian, my Lorentz-Fitzgerald-Einstein derivation
    demands space contraction, and with Newton's zero-eth law(s).

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RichD@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Sun Sep 3 16:26:06 2023
    On September 3, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    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,

    What is this postulate?

    --
    Rich

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Sylvia Else@21:1/5 to RichD on Mon Sep 4 11:39:46 2023
    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.

    --
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ross Finlayson@21:1/5 to Sylvia Else on Sun Sep 3 19:36:30 2023
    On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 6:39:50 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else 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_Measurement.pdf

    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.

    Well sure, it rather starts in the "philosophy", though it's a logic.

    I think we all know that observability and falsifiability are the hallmarks of the
    scientific method and that's fine, and what doesn't suffice is unscientific.

    One way I like to think about it, is that in a theory of sum potentials, the classical
    is also a sum of potentials, so that this way it's not only stipulation.

    I.e., there's a certain course to determine what is a logical theory, that's scientific,
    that its objects, behave as the objects of a science, then with regards to the statistical
    inference, the objects naturally behave that way, while still respecting causality,
    without which theory, logical, at all, is futile.

    So, among reasons people are interested in physics is that it works, it provides
    expectations for inference, that a good theory is reliable in this manner.

    That said, it's totally reliant on the logic and mathematics of the theory of the
    foundation of the logic and mathematics. So, a physicist also needs to be a philosopher,
    to the extent that the theory of mathematics and logic has to support the theory of physics,
    the mathematical interpretation and physical interpretation and as for what's "true" and "real".

    Einstein addressed this in his "Out of My Later Years", Einstein's models of a model physicist,
    entirely empirical, and a model philosopher, entirely mathematical. His point is that the
    received part has to be accessible to a model physicist, empiricist, but that the theory of
    it comes from the model philosopher, a theorist, and that there isn't one without the other,
    in the development of the theory.

    When you look to the Western canon of technical philosophy, there's ancient rhetoric and
    argument, and there is the canon according to Kant, say, after Descartes. So, a key concept
    there is also separating the "phenomenon", accessible to the senses, and "noumenon",
    not accessible to the senses. The relations of objects and their finality in their judgments
    as for example from Kant's "Critique of Judgement", are what meet the senses. However,
    he directly alludes to the bridge between the phenomenon and the noumenon. Back then in
    the canon, only G-d had real truth in theory, so natural physics as canonized always made a
    sharp divide between the finite person and the infinite and absolute. But, Kant introduces
    the notion of the _sublime_, that which is arbitrarily great or even greater than itself, and
    also alludes to that there isn't real cognition in theory, without it, then that with it, there
    is not only the sense of the object, but, also an object-sense, itself. In this way we can justify
    just the bit more than the empirical, in our mental matters of measurement.

    Then, about the infinite, and regress, is about completions. Everybody's familiar with
    standard real analysis and many sorts notions of laws of large numbers and limits and
    all such notions that well-founded set theory and foundations brings as modern mathematics
    and what results the usual logic of the day or "fin de siecle to Y2K foundations, the mathematics
    side". Yet, there are problems with that because the notions of continuity get confounded,
    so there are things today like "set theory builds a complete ordered field" while "category
    theory starts with a [0,1]", then that various completions, and continuum limits, exist only
    later in the theory, like that Jordan measure isn't a thing because it would be [0,1] infinitesimals,
    like the line integral or path integral, and the Dirichlet problem would be like rationals and
    irrationals together, so modern mathematics has a sort of thorn in its paw, to some of the
    most central, otherwise, features of continuous domains of usual models of physics, like
    as from probability theory and topology and measure theory.

    In physics, it's quite similar: since the ultraviolet catastrophe, what was necessary to make
    the quantized so that things are finite and sensible at all, basically discarded another complete
    notion of what and how it is, that acts, like observation and measurement sampling, actually
    result the "point-like" or "particle-like", when "real-ly", as it were, that's just a particularly
    easy model to start, and as well that it's worked out how it combines, but, the completions
    that it should have, result again inaccessible.

    So, in a sense, the relation of not "beyond" nor "alien" to the senses, but right and exactly of
    the object-sense of the sublime of an infinity of noumenon advising exactly a model of the
    things, gets allowed, in the philosophy and the mathematics at all, then so equipping the
    theory of the mathematics, allows to equip the theory of the physical interpretation the physics.

    Otherwise it's like "category theory is contrived and the mathematical model suffers" or
    "set theory doesn't contrive that the physical model suffers", to set up how set theory and
    category theory get back together, because otherwise either and both get laid waste.

    So, set theory needs a "real" sort of infinity, and there are at least three definitions of continuity
    to fit into it, then mathematics _owes_ physics, and, philosophy has to make for reason that
    a notion of infinity, or the continuous, and the notions mathematically of the continuous and
    discrete, results a sort of paleo-classical and then sum-of-potentials super-classical approach,
    that is for foundations stronger than "just a philosophy" or "just a statistics".

    It's a technical philosophy: that there is one. Science, ....

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mitchrae3323@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Sylvia Else on Sun Sep 3 19:46:01 2023
    On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 6:39:50 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else 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_Measurement.pdf

    I can't decipher it.

    --
    Rich
    When we do measurements, we get results.

    Are you sure about that?
    Quantum mechanics says all measurements are uncertain.
    Uncertainty is science's central principle.


    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.

    A measuring device must have the physical property it measures.
    Like a rod extends in space and a clock is temporal in its rate.

    Mitchell Raemsch

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ross Finlayson@21:1/5 to Ross Finlayson on Sun Sep 3 20:23:09 2023
    On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 9:42:56 AM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
    On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 4:01:07 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_Measu
    rement.pdf

    I can't decipher it.
    In one line: Von Neumann's 'projection postulate' is nonsense,

    Jan
    You 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.


    One of the most striking results of quark physics is "asymptotic freedom", that, the center
    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, ....

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Sylvia Else@21:1/5 to mitchr...@gmail.com on Mon Sep 4 13:40:49 2023
    On 04-Sept-23 12:46 pm, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 6:39:50 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else 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_Measurement.pdf

    I can't decipher it.

    --
    Rich
    When we do measurements, we get results.

    Are you sure about that?
    Quantum mechanics says all measurements are uncertain.
    Uncertainty is science's central principle.

    It gives you the probability of finding a particle in a particular place
    or state. So you have to measure that probability.

    Sylvia.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ross Finlayson@21:1/5 to Ross Finlayson on Sun Sep 3 20:44:48 2023
    On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 8:23:11 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
    On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 9:42:56 AM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
    On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 4:01:07 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_Measu
    rement.pdf

    I can't decipher it.
    In one line: Von Neumann's 'projection postulate' is nonsense,

    Jan
    You 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.
    One of the most striking results of quark physics is "asymptotic freedom", that, the center
    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, ....

    Here for example, David Gross' 2004 Nobel Lecture provides a lot of background.

    https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0503831102

    Of course I have a "revisit Hubble, Heisenberg, Higgs" agenda, or, that's what I say and maintain,
    so won't aver the QCD is complete or for Technicolour when Higgs' isn't a field, because here
    the atom itself is the graviton, and the Higgs field is an extra-local interface.

    "Higgs field: not a field, not Higgs classical field, not a potential field"

    Anyways though it's fantastic background reading.

    If you're into that, ....

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Sylvia Else on Mon Sep 4 00:18:19 2023
    On Monday, 4 September 2023 at 03:39:50 UTC+2, Sylvia Else 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_Measurement.pdf

    I can't decipher it.

    --
    Rich
    When we do measurements, we get results.

    Sure, and when You align a ruler incorrrectly You
    get worthless results. And, as Tom says - the
    wonders of relativity are an analogy.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to RichD on Mon Sep 4 10:05:56 2023
    RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> wrote:

    On September 3, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Check this, then tell me what he's trying to say:
    https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/bell/Against_Me
    asurement.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

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Sylvia Else on Mon Sep 4 10:05:56 2023
    Sylvia Else <sylvia@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_Mea
    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 as
    a quantum object, then we need another non-quantum measurement device to observe the first one, and hence into an infinite regression.

    AKA 'the measurement problem'.
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Mon Sep 4 01:54:38 2023
    On Monday, 4 September 2023 at 10:05:59 UTC+2, 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.

    Check this, then tell me what he's trying to say: https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/bell/Against_Mea
    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)

    Wise gurus are chosing the way we 're FORCED
    to interprete them, dumb folk is to obey.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JanPB@21:1/5 to Ross Finlayson on Mon Sep 4 14:08:13 2023
    On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 9:42:56 AM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
    On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 4:01:07 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_Measu
    rement.pdf

    I can't decipher it.
    In one line: Von Neumann's 'projection postulate' is nonsense,

    Jan
    You 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".

    I thought that model was disproved experimentally? One of the prediction of the Bohm - de Broglie model for the double slit experiment is that the particle never
    crosses the plane of symmetry between the slits midpoint and the screen. But
    in real life particles do cross that line - no?

    --
    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From larry harson@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Mon Sep 4 15:12:32 2023
    On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 4:27:32 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 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.
    You simply do not understand SR. The ruler does NOT "contract", 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. As noted by RichD above, you know this from your contracting triangular base example, yet seem unable to apply it to Pat's example here
    appropriately.

    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.

    Larry

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Mon Sep 4 23:06:08 2023
    Le 05/09/2023 à 00:12, larry harson a écrit :

    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 in front of their peers.

    Blaise Pascal pointed this out a long time ago.

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Tue Sep 5 01:15:27 2023
    M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :
    Le 05/09/2023 à 00:12, larry harson a écrit :

    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.

    How could you know? You are a crank.

    The only flaw, ultimately, in all this is the men.

    Filled with self-importance and arrogance

    This defines you.

    Blaise Pascal pointed this out a long time ago.

    Blaise Pascal would had kicked you in the arse, Lengrand.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From larry harson@21:1/5 to RichD on Mon Sep 4 18:09:31 2023
    On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 7:37:52 PM UTC+1, 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.

    --
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JanPB@21:1/5 to Richard Hachel on Mon Sep 4 18:21:54 2023
    On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 4:06:12 PM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
    Le 05/09/2023 à 00:12, larry harson a écrit :

    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.

    Or perhaps our perception of space: we think of it as a rigid and
    a sort of "passive background" in which phenomena occur.

    --
    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JanPB@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Mon Sep 4 18:31:41 2023
    On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 1:05:59 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.

    Check this, then tell me what he's trying to say: https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/bell/Against_Mea
    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 as
    a quantum object, then we need another non-quantum measurement device to observe the first one, and hence into an infinite regression.
    AKA 'the measurement problem'.
    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.

    --
    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ross Finlayson@21:1/5 to JanPB on Mon Sep 4 20:21:10 2023
    On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 6:31:44 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
    On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 1:05:59 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.

    Check this, then tell me what he's trying to say: https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/bell/Against_Mea
    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 as
    a quantum object, then we need another non-quantum measurement device to observe the first one, and hence into an infinite regression.
    AKA 'the measurement problem'.
    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.

    --
    Jan

    How about it gets framed in the space as a "coordinate flux" with respect to the gauge of
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ross Finlayson@21:1/5 to Ross Finlayson on Mon Sep 4 20:22:31 2023
    On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 8:21:13 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
    On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 6:31:44 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
    On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 1:05:59 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.

    Check this, then tell me what he's trying to say: https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/bell/Against_Mea
    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 as
    a quantum object, then we need another non-quantum measurement device to
    observe the first one, and hence into an infinite regression.
    AKA 'the measurement problem'.
    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.

    --
    Jan
    How about it gets framed in the space as a "coordinate flux" with respect to the gauge of
    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.

    It's like Einstein put it, "compound interest is a very strong force".

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ross Finlayson@21:1/5 to Ross Finlayson on Mon Sep 4 21:00:40 2023
    On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 8:22:34 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
    On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 8:21:13 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
    On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 6:31:44 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
    On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 1:05:59 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.

    Check this, then tell me what he's trying to say: https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/bell/Against_Mea
    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 as
    a quantum object, then we need another non-quantum measurement device to
    observe the first one, and hence into an infinite regression.
    AKA 'the measurement problem'.
    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.

    --
    Jan
    How about it gets framed in the space as a "coordinate flux" with respect to the gauge of
    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.
    It's like Einstein put it, "compound interest is a very strong force".


    Hamilton is all Hamilton Jacobi these days.

    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, ...".

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ross Finlayson@21:1/5 to Ross Finlayson on Mon Sep 4 21:22:49 2023
    On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 9:00:42 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
    On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 8:22:34 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
    On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 8:21:13 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
    On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 6:31:44 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
    On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 1:05:59 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.

    Check this, then tell me what he's trying to say: https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/bell/Against_Mea
    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 as
    a quantum object, then we need another non-quantum measurement device to
    observe the first one, and hence into an infinite regression.
    AKA 'the measurement problem'.
    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.

    --
    Jan
    How about it gets framed in the space as a "coordinate flux" with respect to the gauge of
    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.
    It's like Einstein put it, "compound interest is a very strong force".
    Hamilton is all Hamilton Jacobi these days.

    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, ...".


    Einstein's like "I left it coordinate-free"
    and it's like "yeah, Einstein, thanks".

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Tue Sep 5 11:33:40 2023
    Le 05/09/2023 à 01:15, Python a écrit :

    You are a crank.

    Meuh t'euh qu'un bouffon, mec!

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Roberts@21:1/5 to larry harson on Tue Sep 5 13:05:57 2023
    On 9/4/23 5:12 PM, larry harson wrote:
    On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 4:27:32 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 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.
    You simply do not understand SR. The ruler does NOT "contract",
    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.

    There is no "physical component" to "length contraction" in SR. You use
    a PUN on "physical", confusing both you and your readers.

    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:

    Yes. Born rigid motion requires varying accelerations all along the
    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 remains
    rigid in its proper frame.

    No! The change in length measurements performed in the lab frame is not
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ross Finlayson@21:1/5 to JanPB on Tue Sep 5 11:34:28 2023
    On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 6:31:44 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
    On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 1:05:59 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.

    Check this, then tell me what he's trying to say: https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/bell/Against_Mea
    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 as
    a quantum object, then we need another non-quantum measurement device to observe the first one, and hence into an infinite regression.
    AKA 'the measurement problem'.
    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.

    --
    Jan


    "The Free Will Theorem thus shows that any
    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."

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From larry harson@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Tue Sep 5 15:28:05 2023
    On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 7:06:08 PM UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
    On 9/4/23 5:12 PM, larry harson wrote:
    On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 4:27:32 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 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.
    You simply do not understand SR. The ruler does NOT "contract",
    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.
    There is no "physical component" to "length contraction" in SR. You use
    a PUN on "physical", confusing both you and your readers.
    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:
    Yes. Born rigid motion requires varying accelerations all along the
    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 remains
    rigid in its proper frame.
    No! The change in length measurements performed in the lab frame is not
    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

    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. So a moving object has the physical property of possessing a velocity, but it not being intrinsically physical, because it depends upon the velocity of my lab. Likewise with the contraction above which
    is physical in all frames, but not intrinsically physical using my definitions.

    I'm under the impression that for you, physical only means intrinsically physical?

    Larry Harson

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JanPB@21:1/5 to Ross Finlayson on Tue Sep 5 16:11:29 2023
    On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 11:34:31 AM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
    On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 6:31:44 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
    On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 1:05:59 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.

    Check this, then tell me what he's trying to say: https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/bell/Against_Mea
    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 as
    a quantum object, then we need another non-quantum measurement device to
    observe the first one, and hence into an infinite regression.
    AKA 'the measurement problem'.
    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.

    --
    Jan
    "The Free Will Theorem thus shows that any
    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."

    Yes, this is a quote from Conway & Kochen's second
    paper(*) in which they discuss the Ghirardi-Rimini-Weber-type
    theories (which are Schroedinger-equation-based, so
    non-relativistic).

    (*)Notices of the AMS, vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 226-232.

    --
    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Roberts@21:1/5 to larry harson on Tue Sep 5 22:42:52 2023
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to JanPB on Wed Sep 6 10:27:49 2023
    JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 1:05:59?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.

    Check this, then tell me what he's trying to say: https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/bell/Against
    _Mea
    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 as
    a quantum object, then we need another non-quantum measurement device to observe the first one, and hence into an infinite regression.
    AKA 'the measurement problem'.
    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.

    As it happens, I am not very interested in those kinds of logic-chopping
    and theorem proving activities,
    because they leave out the physics of it.
    It all depends on the assumption that there are experimenters who can do measurements. (like determining polarization in some direction)

    But this is precisely the measurement problem,
    and the argument depends on that having been resolved somehow,

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to larry harson on Wed Sep 6 12:33:19 2023
    larry harson <larryharson66@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 7:37:52?PM UTC+1, 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_Mea
    surement.pdf

    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ross Finlayson@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Wed Sep 6 10:54:42 2023
    On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 3:33:22 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    larry harson <larryh...@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 7:37:52?PM UTC+1, 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_Mea
    surement.pdf

    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

    That's all Copenhagen is, that the events are as random,
    then because it's not just particle theory and there's particle-wave
    duality and what there is of "wave collapse, the event", that the
    wave collapse is the event of the interaction or detection of "particles", there's "sum-of-histories" or "sum-over-histories", the path integral,
    which these days have these amplitudes get added up as line elements
    then over all their courses or "sum-of-histories", is for an additive framework
    of what is "backtracking the trails of Copenhagen stochasticity", what results that "sum of potentials" works up a space [0,1] for a random distribution to drop a particle, as it may seem, from that the wave is really just "stochastic"
    insofar as measuring is always arbitrarily smaller than what is the cycle of the overall gradient through the total potential, with usual demonstrations that light behaves as a wave and detection behaves as interference.

    Anyways the "sum-of-histories" these amplitudes is how it's discussed the
    "sum of potentials" that go into particle/wave duality and wave/resonance duality
    and so on, about that wave-fronts have arbitrarily oscillating waves on them, also,
    that this is called usually "pilot wave" or "ghost wave", which to photon-heads are particles.


    Or "I am a measureman".

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RichD@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Wed Sep 6 17:19:10 2023
    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.>
    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.

    --
    Rich

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RichD@21:1/5 to larry harson on Wed Sep 6 17:48:30 2023
    On September 5, larry harson wrote:
    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.

    Never argue semantics, it's never productive. You're free to
    invent whatever definitions you like, but they have to be acceptable
    to others, else useless.

    More reasonable, is to define reality as your sense perceptions.
    Then invent a model to explain those perceptions ('explain' is
    problematic). The model includes various components. Those
    components must have measurable attributes, otherwise
    non-science. Then call the components physical.

    It's then inconsistent to also call the attributes physical.

    I define _intrinsically physical_ to mean a measurement that is independent of the state of my measuring apparatus.

    Not useful.

    --
    Rich

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mitchrae3323@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Sylvia Else on Wed Sep 6 18:13:19 2023
    On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 8:40:53 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
    On 04-Sept-23 12:46 pm, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 6:39:50 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else 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_Measurement.pdf

    I can't decipher it.

    --
    Rich
    When we do measurements, we get results.

    Are you sure about that?
    Quantum mechanics says all measurements are uncertain.
    Uncertainty is science's central principle.
    It gives you the probability of finding a particle in a particular place
    or state. So you have to measure that probability.

    Sylvia.

    Both ways are uncertain measurements.
    Uncertainty of science principle does not go away sylvia.
    Particles belong in the atom.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to RichD on Thu Sep 7 10:11:22 2023
    RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> wrote:

    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.>
    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?

    It is a postulate that cannot be derived from a Schroedinger equation.
    (or any linear evolution equation)
    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?)

    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.

    No idea, but not surprising.
    The postulate annihiltes the entanglement between object and instrument
    that must exist as a result of their interaction.
    (by an ill-defined decree)

    And Bell is all about entanglement.

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JanPB@21:1/5 to RichD on Thu Sep 7 11:08:19 2023
    On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 5:19:13 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
    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.>
    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?

    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?

    --
    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From larry harson@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Thu Sep 7 14:25:43 2023
    On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 4:42:59 AM UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
    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

    Perceiving the responses of our senses is one thing, creating an efficient model from this via our brain geared towards its survival is something else. Then comes language to describe this model from our interaction with our parents. Hence most babies
    upon seeing their reflection of themselves in a mirror for the first time will experience their model of the world updated as their physical senses take in more information from what they're experiencing: confirming to themselves that they have a
    physical body that is must be modeled as separate from everything else for the benefit of its survival, rather than interpreting what they see in the mirror as a part of their self that needs to be also protected.

    Scientific measuring devices are constructed to interact with the world and display this interaction via a symbol that can be unambiguously perceived by everyone else: aka measuring a physical quality that everyone can agree upon.

    Larry

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Roberts@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Thu Sep 7 20:41:54 2023
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ross Finlayson@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Thu Sep 7 22:41:12 2023
    On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 6:42:03 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.
    (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

    Thanks, 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....

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to JanPB on Fri Sep 8 10:31:11 2023
    JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 5:19:13?PM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
    On September 4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/bell/Again
    st_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_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.>
    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?

    The projection relies on certain undefined notions, like what
    is "measurement"?

    Yes, and that is getting more problematic rather than less,
    with ever larger systems becoming 'quantum'.

    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?

    Straightforwrd EPR, obviously.
    Just take the simplest observable there is.
    Place and momentum are more awkward,

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Fri Sep 8 10:31:10 2023
    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.

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Fri Sep 8 01:41:07 2023
    On Friday, 8 September 2023 at 10:31:13 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    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 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.

    Well, trying to anchor your moronic mumble somewhere
    gives some funny results often.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Roberts@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Fri Sep 8 23:22:13 2023
    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.

    Tom Roberts

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Sat Sep 9 18:12:47 2023
    Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

    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 . . ."

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Sat Sep 9 09:18:19 2023
    On Saturday, 9 September 2023 at 18:12:50 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    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 . . ."

    As it obviously came from some postulate of that religious maniac -
    there is no chance of a mistake.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RichD@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Sat Sep 9 10:50:59 2023
    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 begs the 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-

    --
    Rich

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to RichD on Sat Sep 9 20:17:17 2023
    RichD <r_delaney2001@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...
    'irreversible' is a CLASSICAL concept.

    Where did you pick up this strange idea?

    What does it mean, in a purely Schrodinger quantum context?

    In a purely Schroedinger concept it doesn't exist.
    (the entropy of a pure state is always zero)
    The same is of course already true in a purely Laplacian clockwork.

    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,

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Sat Sep 9 11:38:51 2023
    On Saturday, 9 September 2023 at 20:17:20 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:

    Au contraire, you don't understand the first things
    about quantum statistical mechanics,

    That it's just some postulates of some insane religious
    maniacs.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From larry harson@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Sat Sep 9 15:30:39 2023
    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...
    'irreversible' is a CLASSICAL concept.
    Where did you pick up this strange idea?

    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.

    Larry.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Roberts@21:1/5 to RichD on Sat Sep 9 23:14:34 2023
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Sun Sep 10 10:22:57 2023
    Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@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 is
    an artifact of the Copenhagen interpretation). Ballentine's approach
    avoids all that....

    I may have misremembered,
    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,

    Jan

    [1] And you give up on -a fully quantummechanical- description
    of the whole measurement proces, including the measurement apparatus.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Sun Sep 10 01:55:26 2023
    On Sunday, 10 September 2023 at 10:23:01 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    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 is
    an artifact of the Copenhagen interpretation). Ballentine's approach
    avoids all that....
    I may have misremembered,
    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,

    No physical meaning should be attached to most of
    the mumble of your bunch of clowns. It's just a tool
    for predicting the outcome of your delusional gedankens
    in your delusional gedankenwelt.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ross Finlayson@21:1/5 to Ross Finlayson on Sun Sep 10 10:15:20 2023
    On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 10:41:14 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
    On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 6:42:03 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.
    (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
    Thanks, 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....


    After "it's stochastic" is "whatever is in effect not from just besides the usual quantum formalism like the classical there is what arrives",
    what's called parastatistics, about how Bosons and Fermions must have
    some overall complementary property, for their Bose and Fermi statistics,
    is that "quantum mechanics is never wrong", so, what's so measured is
    what advises the stochastic, what otherwise detects the impulse.

    This is according to halves of quantum spins, quantities in halfs and in
    even or odd halfs of quantum spin, the quantum property, as what
    the statistics are one or the other, and where that's neutrinos then
    the muons are besides with their weak (nuclear force).

    I suppose any partner particle has a neutrino, is a neutrino,
    with large neutrinos and small neutrinos. (Supersymmetrys')

    Or, from what I gather there are Bose statistics, Fermi statistics,
    those parastatistics, and other parastatistics besides, what
    quantum theory includes for mass and charge carriers.
    Then, weak and electroweak is included in those in their terms,
    about leptons in the electroweak.

    Or "Copenhagen: I might not know everything about quantum probabilities,
    but quantum mechanics is never wrong."

    It's a continuum mechanics, ....

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parastatistics#Formalism

    Wiki says the "parastatistics formalism is what makes sigma algebras",
    i.e. what implements measure or "what's the classical interpretation",
    and usually area if not length.

    I don't agree "that Pauli exclusion only applies to fermions".

    It like "does the Higgs boson really mass that much"
    and "yeah, when we measured it". "Which is the same Pauli's particle."

    "In more than two dimensions, the spin–statistics theorem states
    that any multiparticle state of indistinguishable particles has to obey
    either Bose–Einstein or Fermi–Dirac statistics."


    Then, measurement gets involved in sampling and observation, sampling in time, it's an act.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to larry harson on Sun Sep 10 21:25:14 2023
    larry harson <larryharson66@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 behaviou
    r)
    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.
    Where did you pick up this strange idea?

    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 Wheeler–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.

    As an amateur, I find this definition to be
    precise and to the point, leaving its philosophical outcomes for the philosophers to debate over.

    Indeed, mere -interpretations- are irrelevant for experimentalists.
    Only outcomes mattter,

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ross Finlayson@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Sun Sep 10 13:42:09 2023
    On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 1:36:56 PM UTC-7, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
    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.
    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.
    Yeah, sure, these petabytes have made itself by itself.
    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.
    Only outcomes mattter,
    You're a true idiot, for sure.

    "We do not assume k = 1/c^2, we measure it." -- Fultoni

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Sun Sep 10 13:36:53 2023
    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.
    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.

    Yeah, sure, these petabytes have made itself by itself.
    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.
    Only outcomes mattter,

    You're a true idiot, for sure.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RichD@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Sun Sep 10 17:25:45 2023
    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 is
    an artifact of the Copenhagen interpretation). Ballentine's approach
    avoids all that....

    How does he explain the double slit experiment?

    --
    Rich

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RichD@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Sun Sep 10 17:34:51 2023
    On September 10, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    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)

    Yes, the prediction is the probabilistic projection of the wave
    function onto the eigenvectors. Which is precisely von Neumann's
    Hilbert space model. So where's the nonsense?

    No physical meaning should be attached to the wave function by itself.
    Bell says very similar things in the paper already cited,

    The wave function isn't considered physical, in any model, it's
    abstract. But somehow a real measurement occurs, in our classical
    macroworld. That's the essential mystery, the 'measurement problem'.
    You and Bell haven't offered any resolution at all. (though I'm not sure
    what is Bell's position)

    --
    Rich

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From larry harson@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Sun Sep 10 18:05:38 2023
    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 behaviou
    r)
    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.
    Where did you pick up this strange idea?

    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 Wheeler–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.

    Larry

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ross Finlayson@21:1/5 to RichD on Sun Sep 10 20:18:27 2023
    On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 5:25:48 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
    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 is
    an artifact of the Copenhagen interpretation). Ballentine's approach avoids all that....
    How does he explain the double slit experiment?

    --
    Rich

    He doesn't?

    It just piles up with the difraction pattern, it's modal,
    that the "optical" of light, and for electrons dispersion,
    is that the electrons are going left to right while
    the light goes through both slits, what projects,
    and what fills, in constructive waves.

    I don't know if this has anything to say, I don't know
    any "statistical ensemble" where the statistics are constants.

    It seems the spin-statistical, is in these constructive waves,
    while light optical has camera obscura and what results
    caustics of light or lensing, up in brightness, that the statistics
    are in and out, where they are constants, the spin statistics,
    though also up in the numbers. It is a simple system of
    five halfs spin numbers, the "statistical ensemble",
    is for example, "all data sets must be admitted".

    Which as far as the world of constants is the statistical ensemble, ....

    In effect it's what's in effect.

    So what they do is leave Heaviside out of Bose and Fermi then Fermi
    mediates the electrical the spin numbers, what is the electrical,
    or Fermi electron theory, Fermi Dirac. (Heaviside and Maxwell.)

    So, Bose Einstein, and, Fermi Dirac, mediate, what is in
    effect according to power, what the measurements would
    observe under that, then what goes to Maxwell,
    what is the interface, mediated, Bosons and Fermions,
    and, electrons (or leptons).

    Then that's about a "standard statistical ensemble",
    besides somebody including their in effect statistical ensemble
    as "The statistical ensemble".

    So, Ballentine now though is associated with the statistical ensemble,
    "The statistical ensemble".

    It seems what he said must mean also he's in it,
    that when Copenhagen isn't Denmark, that includes
    already both "old" quantum theory and quantum theory,
    their usual or standard formalisms, then "standard,
    a statistical ensemble".

    The amplitude and amplitudehedrons, it's also
    usually quantum, besides these "spin numbers" in
    length contraction, space contraction, these of course
    add up as they usually do.

    These "five halfs spin numbers" are a particular among
    exactly these theories as I wrote above: it is the
    convention the data is in.

    You know my opinion, if light's speed is superfluid
    and infinite, the rest gets there while I'm still seeing it,
    I definitely know that opaque things occlude things,
    while sound echoes. So, "light echoes",
    are two different things, echoing through the tunnels
    and on their small sides through the slits, is like
    Casimir, it doesn't attenuate the components on that
    part of the "effusive" of light, echoing down the pipe,
    it doesn't get quieter, then it comes up to tango with
    whatever focus brings together.
    .
    It's like you could design a test for near and far lights,
    of about the same relative brightness,
    and move the one around, and notice how
    shadow and light, "shine a light", that's a
    real effect also.

    Then the spin partners for all the particles are
    put together and added up their way, making
    for example samples of statistics.

    So, it would seem Ballentine is both, "statistical ensemble",
    and, he would say "and this is mine".


    So, no, I don't know how Ballentine explains double slit,
    which is one makes no diffraction but two make diffraction,
    in fact I don't ask, but it's directly in his
    statistical ensemble, and theory.

    If I had to ask I'd think that he employs Quantum Electrodynamics.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Roberts@21:1/5 to RichD on Mon Sep 11 12:15:49 2023
    xOn 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.

    Tom Roberts
    x

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Roberts@21:1/5 to Sylvia Else on Mon Sep 11 12:19:07 2023
    On 9/3/23 8:39 PM, Sylvia Else 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_Measurement.pdf
    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.

    Oh no, it's MUCH worse than that -- the measuring instrument is a
    classical device with trillions and trillions of degrees of freedom,
    which is hopeless to analyze in a quantum framework.

    Tom Roberts

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Roberts@21:1/5 to larry harson on Mon Sep 11 12:41:40 2023
    On 9/9/23 5:30 PM, larry harson wrote:
    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.

    Yes. Well known. The Maxwell's equations have time-reversal (T) as a
    member of their invariance group; parity-inversion (P) and
    charge-conjugation (C) are also members. So unlike the standard model,
    which has CPT symmetry but not CP or T, Maxwell's equations have C, P,
    and T symmetries in any combination.

    In any case, it is very common for a theory to have a given invariance,
    but the solutions do not, usually because the boundary conditions do not
    obey the invariance. That is all you point out here.

    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"?

    Tom Roberts

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From larry harson@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Mon Sep 11 17:11:34 2023
    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.

    Larry

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RichD@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Mon Sep 11 18:25:58 2023
    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 -

    --
    Rich

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RichD@21:1/5 to larry harson on Mon Sep 11 18:19:20 2023
    On September 11, larry harson wrote:
    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.

    That's a re-phrasing of Schrodinger's cat; QM probabilistically predicts
    the outcome of opening the lid.

    From the lab scientist's viewpoint, the computer and object form
    a unified system, in a quantum superposition state. The scientist
    reads the display, and the observation/measurement occurs.

    However... does the computer qualify as an observer, when it reads
    the detector? Quantum theory says that, since this question is
    untestable, the question is meaningless.

    (is the cat REALLY alive, or REALLY dead, in the box? We don't know
    until we open the lid...)

    --
    Rich

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ross Finlayson@21:1/5 to RichD on Mon Sep 11 20:49:35 2023
    On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 6:26:01 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
    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 -

    --
    Rich

    I think it gets its own, it's a well or
    "the wave goes to the bottom of all wells".

    (The detector "at" the slit visa-vis the screen behind.)

    A computer chip operates sort of exactly as a level
    or edge detection which is sort of exactly "observation
    of a quantum electrical effect".

    I.e. I can't but imagine that the modeling in effect,
    has that every exchange in energy is an "observation",
    including that it could be probed. Now, that might not
    "really" be so in systems so described that "there's
    ever a discrete, quantized, particle", in field effect devices.

    It sort of is exactly what is the model of transistor networks, though.

    It pretty much amazes me to hear all this big iron talk about it,
    "what about JPL? What about GE? Who's a watt-sys?", but
    "quantum mechanics" goes back to the ultraviolet catastrophe
    and electron physics, so, where it really matters "what _is_
    an observation, which provides or distorts effect", means something
    to these people, and what's an observable in the theory is privileged,
    whether it provides or defies the relevant effect, that there are field
    effect devices called so because their formalism isn't necesssarily
    quantized, for example, as to whether "observable" would necessarily
    be "disruptive".

    Then I would think of it in terms of what are field effects,
    like , "is a vacuum tube pentode a field effect or particle effect",
    "is the Hall effect a field effect?", "what is near field and far field?",
    I don't have to care about these things but Hall effect is sort of solenoidal and a field effect.

    Then, that "observable" is also the "controllable", it's sort of scattered, about what it means first of all in usual circuits, then what-all "quantized".

    In the quantum, the "renormalization" is because "quantum is denormalized". The, "non-renormalizable", it's like the "highly nonlinear", epochs,
    boundary of spaces and their coordinate settings and contents.

    So, "observer effect" in quantum, usually means "disruptive observer
    effect in the non-renormalizable in the quantum".

    Then as a process it's just sampling, measurement, observation, "effects" of those being after the statistical. i.e., "overall, science is a statistical ensemble".

    So, I'm not sure exactly all why the definitions have to make for broad conventions, but essentially it involves a stricter mode of usage the
    use and mention of "observe", the act, or "emit", or the event, where generally "a space-time event" is in some sense, observable and non-observable.

    Then, Heisenberg helps bring "here's where length and mass break down".
    Again now I've just introduced that they don't, which is usual, but not necessarily the same _intent_, nor meaning, of "invoking Heisenberg".

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to RichD on Tue Sep 12 09:56:31 2023
    RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> wrote:

    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 -

    Ballantine has, (that is, those who he is copying)
    as long as you confine yourself to ensembles.

    That limit is under pressure though,
    with ever more and bigger 'macroscopic' objects
    being put into quantum states,

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to larry harson on Tue Sep 12 09:56:30 2023
    larry harson <larryharson66@gmail.com> wrote:

    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.

    By Bohrian doctrine it is.
    You must distinguish between a quantum realm,
    with wave functions and all that, and a classical realm,
    with measuring instruments that can be read.
    The computer is no doubt part of the classical realm.
    It merely records what has already been measured,
    (sparks having occurred in a spark chamber, for example)

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to larry harson on Tue Sep 12 13:00:48 2023
    larry harson <larryharson66@gmail.com> wrote:

    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...
    'irreversible' is a CLASSICAL concept.
    Where did you pick up this strange idea?

    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 Wheeler–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.

    Yes, it is.
    You can impose a direction of time
    by choosing appropriate boundary conditions,
    but that is a trivial matter.
    (by requiring solutons with outgoing radiation fields, for example)

    To obtain real irreversibility you need to do statistical mechanics,
    both classically and quantum mechanicaly.
    There is no difference of principle here.
    (just a classical phase space getting replace by a quantum one)

    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.

    Yes, and so what?
    Do you really believe in a theoretical heaven at CERN,
    floating way above those dirty experiments,
    where they didn't bother with predictions?

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Tue Sep 12 13:00:54 2023
    Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

    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).

    Interference is not a collective effect of many photons interactng.

    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.

    'Ordinary' quantum mechanics also predicts that,

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Roberts@21:1/5 to RichD on Fri Sep 15 10:00:49 2023
    On 9/11/23 8:25 PM, RichD wrote:
    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 hae a different physical situation that requires a different analysis.

    From your comments, I'm skeptical that Ballentine has tied up
    all the loose strings -

    Don't confuse me with Ballentine. This is not something I work with
    every day, and I read his book several years ago.

    Tom Roberts

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Roberts@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Fri Sep 15 10:03:15 2023
    On 9/12/23 6:00 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    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.

    Sure. But CE is not valid unless there are trillions of photons, which
    is what I meant.

    Tom Roberts

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ken Seto@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Fri Sep 15 08:36:21 2023
    On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 11:09:15 AM UTC-4, 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.

    THERE IS no material contraction. a meter stick will remain the same length
    no matter how fast it is moving. What is contracting is the length that light need to travel
    to cover the material length of a moving meter stick. What this mean is that when
    the meter stick is at rest then the light path length needed to cover the material length of
    a meter stick is one meter. When the meter stick is moving then the light length
    needed to cover the material length of a moving mater stick is 1/gamma meters. This is
    interpreted as length contraction.

    "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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From larry harson@21:1/5 to larry harson on Fri Sep 15 16:45:17 2023
    On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 11:30:41 PM UTC+1, larry harson 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...
    'irreversible' is a CLASSICAL concept.
    Where did you pick up this strange idea?

    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.

    Expanding on this, the retarded and advanced LW potentials are time reversed solutions of one another. We can convert an advanced system to a retarded system of LW potentials by subtracting from the latter a free potential field aka radiation potential =
    retarded - advanced potentials. These two systems of retarded + free-potential are now time reversed solutions wrt one another. Similarly, we can do this to get a time reversed solution of advanced potentials + free-potential. Readers might also be
    interested in the fairly recent debate on time reversibility in electromagnetism from two decades ago:

    Time reversal in classical electromagnetism https://users.ox.ac.uk/~mert2255/papers/trce.pdf

    Larry

    [snipped]

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From larry harson@21:1/5 to larry harson on Fri Sep 15 16:55:34 2023
    On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 11:30:41 PM UTC+1, larry harson 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...
    'irreversible' is a CLASSICAL concept.
    Where did you pick up this strange idea?

    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.

    Expanding on this, the retarded and advanced LW potentials are time reversed solutions of one another. We can convert an advanced system to a retarded system of LW potentials by adding to the first a free potential field aka radiation potential =
    retarded - advanced potential. These two systems of retarded + free-potential are now time reversed solutions wrt one another. Similarly, we can do this to get a time reversed solution of advanced potentials + free-potential. Readers might also be
    interested in the fairly recent debate on time reversibility in electromagnetism from one-two decades ago:

    Time reversal in classical electromagnetism https://users.ox.ac.uk/~mert2255/papers/trce.pdf

    Larry

    [snipped]

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ross Finlayson@21:1/5 to Ross Finlayson on Sat Sep 16 15:52:40 2023
    On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 8:23:11 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
    On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 9:42:56 AM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
    On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 4:01:07 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_Measu
    rement.pdf

    I can't decipher it.
    In one line: Von Neumann's 'projection postulate' is nonsense,

    Jan
    You 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.
    One of the most striking results of quark physics is "asymptotic freedom", that, the center
    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."

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ross Finlayson@21:1/5 to Ross Finlayson on Sat Sep 16 17:11:33 2023
    On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 3:52:43 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
    On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 8:23:11 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
    On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 9:42:56 AM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
    On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 4:01:07 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_Measu
    rement.pdf

    I can't decipher it.
    In one line: Von Neumann's 'projection postulate' is nonsense,

    Jan
    You 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.
    One of the most striking results of quark physics is "asymptotic freedom", that, the center
    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."


    Just for example, the image when passing, is the face-to-face image, but it arrives, side-by-side.
    And is also gone!

    Then, this is "peripheral parallax", that as the meeting image approaches, it is direct,
    and at the last instant, since the angle was direct, it is the impulse then that it vanishes
    not small: at the peripheral, the parallax, where light's motion clearly then after meeting,
    is gone, "going the other way", effectively from "same light speed rest frame" to "parting
    light speed rest frames" and at the last instant and parting, reverse angle and growing
    slowly again, reverse angle, to out of sight.

    I.e. the reflections, that make images, always start at the source, where the reflection
    of the transmission of their light goes, where they in effect see the light where they are,
    also (no relativity of simultaneity, standing wave).

    So, such addenda to the thought experiment or "Einstein's usual train", of course this
    is in accords with all matters of immediate imaging, according to reflections, or absorptions.
    (Light.)

    Then the electro as of the extended electric field and the carrier wave or the electrical wave,
    it's relativistic and also though "less than ideal", about what's the order of things as of the
    notions like "light's speed is on the order of 10^8, the systolic on this chip is as so infinite in
    its natural units, though for example 10^6, or that's the 2 orders of magnitude slow, then
    as in accords that high frequency packet radio, is a standing wave and according to compressed
    wave mostly in time-terms, i.e. "packets are natural milli and microseconds", fixed size.

    It's like a meter is like a yard that's like three feet, then four or my steps is about three feet
    a pace, and I only have two feet, so it works out ten feet in four, or about three meters.

    Feet per second, ....

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)