0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Quote from: CrazyScientist on 11/04/2021 18:08:28Constant c is characteristic only for light. It is constant in all inertal frames Quote from: CrazyScientist on 11/04/2021 18:08:28and it's value [c] doesn't undergo addition or subtraction from any other velocity.You seriously don't see the logical contradiction here?At a point in space, let's call it point A, a space ship traveling at .5c sends out a light pulse. According to your first statement above, from the ship's frame, the light will travel out in front of the ship at the speed c. That means after 1 second the light pulse will be 1 light-second in front of the ship. And the ship is .5 light seconds from point A after 1 second. So the light pulse has traveled 1.5 light-seconds in 1 second. This is the only logic conclusion.According to your second statement above the speed of light and the speed of the ship are not added, so the light pulse will be .5 light-seconds ahead of the ship after 1 second.So that is big logical problem!If the first statement is true then the second statement is false.If the second statement is true then the first statement is false. I am afraid that you are refusing to see the problems so you won't have admit your idea is flawed.

Constant c is characteristic only for light. It is constant in all inertal frames

and it's value [c] doesn't undergo addition or subtraction from any other velocity.

According to your first statement above, from the ship's frame, the light will travel out in front of the ship at the speed c. That means after 1 second the light pulse will be 1 light-second in front of the ship. And the ship is .5 light seconds from point A after 1 second. So the light pulse has traveled 1.5 light-seconds in 1 second. This is the only logic conclusion.

All values in the range of... what?

in the range from 0 (velocity of stationary frame) to relative velocities v1 and v2 and from relative velocities v1 and v2 to the constant velocity c.

Quote from: CrazyScientist on 12/04/2021 00:55:44in the range from 0 (velocity of stationary frame) to relative velocities v1 and v2 and from relative velocities v1 and v2 to the constant velocity c.Well, c doesn't equal zero, so it's wrong.

So the light pulse has traveled 1.5 light-seconds in 1 second. This is the only logic conclusion" - not when you include the part, which I've underlined above

Constant velocity c can't equal 0

So, it's completely valid.

Quote from: Halc on 11/04/2021 21:46:09Matter being a probability distribution? What theory says that?About that - google: "wave function matter"...

Matter being a probability distribution? What theory says that?

QuoteQuantum theory in no way suggests absolute simultaneity. Perhaps you are getting your mistaken information from pop youtube videos and such.About that... google: "quantum entanglement and simultaneity":

Quantum theory in no way suggests absolute simultaneity. Perhaps you are getting your mistaken information from pop youtube videos and such.

https://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=23258"Operations on an entangled particle do in fact affect the partner particle instantaneously, if you choose to describe things as if events at one particle affect the other one.

Actually, it was proven recently that if entangled partners interacted at any finite speed, then you could send faster-than-light signals. Since this wouldn't be consistent with special relativity, it is a proof that the interaction must be instantaneous ("infinite speed").

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1755-1315/658/1/012001/pdfBasic Theory of Quantum Entanglement and the Possibility ofPassing on Information Faster than the Speed of Light

"Reconciling Spacetime and the Quantum: Relational Blockworld and the QuantumLiar ParadoxW.M. Stuckey1, Michael Silberstein2,3 and Michael Cifone3AbstractThe Relational Blockworld (RBW) interpretation of non-relativistic quantum mechanicsis introduced.

Absolute Space-Time and Measurement"AbstractThe concept of simultaneity is relative in special relativity whereas, it seems to have a definitemeaning in quantum mechanics. We propose to use the invariant space-time interval introduced by special relativity as a benchmark for constructing an absolute notion of space-time. We also propose to illustrate that when no measurement is conducted on a quantum system its wave function lives as a wave in the absolute space-time but, when a measurement is to be conducted, we must switch to an ordinary observable frame of reference where the quantum system lives as a particle"

This still leaves the problem of the stationary observer seeing the light wavefront only being .5 light seconds ahead of the ship and space ship observer seeing the wavefront at 1 light-second ahead of the ship.

I didn't see anything saying that matter was a probability distribution.At best, one can say that the wave function of a system can be used to determine the probability distribution of the state of that system that will be measured. With that I would agree. It doesn't mean that a probability distribution is what matter is. There are those that posit that matter actually is a wave function, but a wave function is again not a probability distribution.

Quote from: CrazyScientist on 11/04/2021 22:06:28Quote from: Halc on 11/04/2021 21:46:09Matter being a probability distribution? What theory says that?About that - google: "wave function matter"...I didn't see anything saying that matter was a probability distribution.At best, one can say that the wave function of a system can be used to determine the probability distribution of the state of that system that will be measured. With that I would agree. It doesn't mean that a probability distribution is what matter is. There are those that posit that matter actually is a wave function, but a wave function is again not a probability distribution.Quote from: CrazyScientist on 11/04/2021 22:48:58QuoteQuantum theory in no way suggests absolute simultaneity. Perhaps you are getting your mistaken information from pop youtube videos and such.About that... google: "quantum entanglement and simultaneity":Oh I have no doubt that you'll get lots of hits on a search like that, many of which assert the 'instantaneous' cause/effect, but QM does not. Most of the sites/posts are not in formats where peers can comment on them pointing out the errors. These posts would be torn apart on forums where the members know their QM well.Quotehttps://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=23258"Operations on an entangled particle do in fact affect the partner particle instantaneously, if you choose to describe things as if events at one particle affect the other one.Here the statement is conditional. "If you choose ...". Yes, one can choose an interpretation where 'instantly' has meaning and there is faster than light causality, which necessitates effect before cause in some situations (like delayed choice experiments). DeBroglie-Bohm interpretation is one of these choices, but since it makes zero empirical predictions, it is metaphysics, not science.QuoteActually, it was proven recently that if entangled partners interacted at any finite speed, then you could send faster-than-light signals. Since this wouldn't be consistent with special relativity, it is a proof that the interaction must be instantaneous ("infinite speed"). Non-sequitur. Any local interpretation posits no interaction at all between the entangled pair, so there is no need for any signal, FTL or otherwise. Some interpretations deny wave function collapse. None of the interpretations are science. That's why they're interpretations instead of theories. QM is a theory and makes concrete empirical predictions, none of which involves FTL interactions.Quotehttps://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1755-1315/658/1/012001/pdfBasic Theory of Quantum Entanglement and the Possibility ofPassing on Information Faster than the Speed of LightAgain, "possibility". QM does not disallow this possibility, and I never said otherwise.This article seems to have been written by a complete amateur or high-school student. The web is full of such articles. Interesting that you need to reach to this level to find support.Quote"Reconciling Spacetime and the Quantum: Relational Blockworld and the QuantumLiar ParadoxW.M. Stuckey1, Michael Silberstein2,3 and Michael Cifone3AbstractThe Relational Blockworld (RBW) interpretation of non-relativistic quantum mechanicsis introduced.This talks about some interpretation (philosophy), not QM (science). My statement was that QM does not conclude or posit FTL interaction between entangled particles, and you're citing nothing but sites about something other than QM, or articles written by non-physicists.QuoteAbsolute Space-Time and Measurement"AbstractThe concept of simultaneity is relative in special relativity whereas, it seems to have a definitemeaning in quantum mechanics. We propose to use the invariant space-time interval introduced by special relativity as a benchmark for constructing an absolute notion of space-time. We also propose to illustrate that when no measurement is conducted on a quantum system its wave function lives as a wave in the absolute space-time but, when a measurement is to be conducted, we must switch to an ordinary observable frame of reference where the quantum system lives as a particle"This seem to suggest a local method to determine an absolute frame, which would rock the world if it worked. I can probably find 100 sites/posts making similar claims.Your choices of sources of information (and your total misrepresentations of every theory in your error laden OP) seem to suggest you're just a science denier instead of somebody genuinely trying to work out an alternative theory for something. I see little point in continuing the discussion then. I'm here to help, not to win a contest of who can find the most links to bad science.Side note: Special relativity does not conclude or posit the lack of a preferred (absolute) frame. That would be a metaphysical assertion, and SR is an empirical theory.

Oh I have no doubt that you'll get lots of hits on a search like that, many of which assert the 'instantaneous' cause/effect, but QM does not. Most of the sites/posts are not in formats where peers can comment on them pointing out the errors. These posts would be torn apart on forums where the members know their QM well

Quote from: CrazyScientist on 12/04/2021 01:25:00Constant velocity c can't equal 0Of course it doesn't. That's exactly what I was saying.Quote from: CrazyScientist on 12/04/2021 01:25:00So, it's completely valid.Which is why your equation is wrong. Your equation says that zero equals the speed of light.

I can't see no "=" in here

Quote from: CrazyScientist on 13/04/2021 00:52:39I can't see no "=" in hereWell, I sure do:0 =<{...}>= v1 =<{...}> c <{...}>= v2 =<{...}>= 0

But there's no "=" between c and the rest...

Quote from: CrazyScientist on 13/04/2021 01:56:20But there's no "=" between c and the rest...What does "<{...}> c <{...}>" mean, exactly?

And my general point is here the fact, that hyperdeterministic SRT doesn't go too well with such probabilistic representation of physical reality

Of course you are aware, that most of those sources are peer-rewieved (if some of them aren't then my bad), so you don't have any actual right, to dismiss their credibility.

Everything, what you said in the citation above, is nothing more, than your educated yet still private opinion...

These posts would be torn apart on forums where the members know their QM well

Do you suggest, that such people would be "torn apart on forums where the members know their QM well"?

"So the light pulse has traveled 1.5 light-seconds in 1 second."

in the inertial frame of the moving star ship, light pulse propagates at constant c from a point of origin A1 which remains stationary in this frame

in the inertial frame of the moving star ship, light pulse propagates at constant c from a point of origin A1 which remains stationary in this frameIn the inertial frame of stationary observer, light pulse propagates at constant c from a point of origin A2 which remains stationary in this frame.

Quote from: CrazyScientist on 13/04/2021 00:31:12And my general point is here the fact, that hyperdeterministic SRT doesn't go too well with such probabilistic representation of physical realityIt does just fine. Of 13 interpretations of quantum mechanics charted in wiki, only four are deterministic, and yes, perhaps Einstein would have favored one of these deterministic interpretations since his distaste for true randomness was documented. He also favored no information transfer faster than light, so a local interpretation might also be favored by Einstein. At his time, such interpretations that met both criteria (notably relative state formulation, Everett, 1957) was introduced a few years after Einstein’s death.There are also non-deterministic interpretations that still do not involve any true randomness, so no dice rolling. I personally favor one of these, but do not suggest the others are faulty.QuoteOf course you are aware, that most of those sources are peer-rewieved (if some of them aren't then my bad), so you don't have any actual right, to dismiss their credibility.I pointed out the reasons why each does not back your assertion, denying the credibility of only the one that appeared to have been written by an amateur. Most of the others were not speaking of QM theory, but rather specific interpretations. My claims were about the QM science, and not about metaphysical interpretations, each of which makes different claims as to if and when wave functions collapse.QuoteEverything, what you said in the citation above, is nothing more, than your educated yet still private opinion... No, each quotation (except the one) was just not contradicting my point since it was talking about something else.Quote from: HalcThese posts would be torn apart on forums where the members know their QM wellThis statement of mine was probably over the top. Each post (again but the one) wasn’t wrong, it just wasn’t talking about QM theory. You need to find a post speaking about the theory itself and not some specific metaphysical interpretation of the observations.There are plenty of valid interpretations (any of the 6 local ones for starters) that do not posit ‘instantaneous’ interaction between entangled particles. To maintain your claim that there is such an interaction, you would need to do what the physics community has failed to do which is to falsify each of these six interpretations. That’s your responsibility if you’re making the instantaneous claim. None of your quoted sources (except the one again) actually made the claim uncondictionally. They were all conditional on additional premises that QM theory does not posit.QuoteDo you suggest, that such people would be "torn apart on forums where the members know their QM well"?Only the one guy actually. I apologise for that statement since none of the others deserved it. They were simply all conditional quotes, none actually speaking of what the empirical theory states.And for the record, I am no expert on quantum theory, but neither am I a dunce.