JC's long post on determinism, locality and realism

[Alan Grayson]

JC:

If you want all the details this is going to be a long post, you asked for it. First I'm gonna have to show that any theory (except for super determinism which is idiotic) that is deterministic, local and realistic cannot possibly explain the violation of Bell's Inequality that we see in our experiments, and then show why a theory like Many Worlds which is deterministic and local but NOT realistic can.

The hidden variable concept was Einstein's idea, he thought there was a local reason all events happened, even quantum mechanical events, but we just can't see what they are. It was a reasonable guess at the time but today experiments have shown that Einstein was wrong, to do that I'm gonna illustrate some of the details of Bell's inequality with an example.

When a photon of undetermined polarization hits a polarizing filter there is a 50% chance it will make it through. For many years physicists like Einstein who disliked the idea that God played dice with the universe figured there must be a hidden variable inside the photon that told it what to do. By "hidden variable" they meant something different about that particular photon that we just don't know about. They meant something equivalent to a look-up table inside the photon that for one reason or another we are unable to access but the photon can when it wants to know if it should go through a filter or be stopped by one. We now understand that is impossible. In 1964 (but not published until 1967) John Bell showed that correlations that work by hidden variables must be less than or equal to a certain value, this is called Bell's Inequality. In experiment it was found that some correlations are actually greater than that value. Quantum Mechanics can explain this, classical physics or even classical logic can not.

Even if Quantum Mechanics is someday proven to be untrue Bell's argument is still valid, in fact his original paper had no Quantum Mechanics in it and can be derived with high school algebra; his point was that any successful theory about how the world works must explain why his inequality is violated, and today we know for a fact from experiments that it is indeed violated. Nature just refuses to be sensible and doesn't work the way you'd think it should.            

I have a black box, it has a red light and a blue light on it, it also has a rotary switch with 6 connections at the 12,2,4,6,8 and 10 o'clock positions. The red and blue light blink in a manner that passes all known tests for being completely random, this is true regardless of what position the rotary switch is in. Such a box could be made and still be completely deterministic by just pre-computing 6 different random sequences and recording them as a look-up table in the box. Now the box would know which light to flash.

I have another black box. When both boxes have the same setting on their rotary switch they both produce the same random sequence of light flashes. This would also be easy to reproduce in a classical physics world, just record the same 6 random sequences in both boxes. 

The set of boxes has another property, if the switches on the 2 boxes are set to opposite positions, 12 and 6 o'clock for example, there is a total negative correlation; when one flashes red the other box flashes blue and when one box flashes blue the other flashes red. This just makes it all the easier to make the boxes because now you only need to pre-calculate 3 random sequences, then just change every 1 to 0 and every 0 to 1 to get the other 3 sequences and record all 6 in both boxes.

The boxes have one more feature that makes things very interesting, if the rotary switch on a box is one notch different from the setting on the other box then the sequence of light flashes will on average be different 1 time in 4. How on Earth could I make the boxes behave like that? Well, I could change on average one entry in 4 of the 12 o'clock look-up table (hidden variable) sequence and make that the 2 o'clock table. Then change 1 in 4 of the 2 o'clock and make that the 4 o'clock, and change 1 in 4 of the 4 o'clock and make that the 6 o'clock. So now the light flashes on the box set at 2 o'clock is different from the box set at 12 o'clock on average by 1 flash in 4. The box set at 4 o'clock differs from the one set at 12 by 2 flashes in 4, and the one set at 6 differs from the one set at 12 by 3 flashes in 4.

BUT I said before that boxes with opposite settings should have a 100% anti-correlation, the flashes on the box set at 12 o'clock should differ from the box set at 6 o'clock by 4 flashes in 4 NOT 3 flashes in 4. Thus if the boxes work by hidden variables then when one is set to 12 o'clock and the other to 2 there MUST be a 2/3 correlation, at 4 a 1/3 correlation, and of course at 6 no correlation at all.  A correlation greater than 2/3, such as 3/4, for adjacent settings produces paradoxes, at least it would if you expected everything to work mechanistically because of some local hidden variable involved.

Does this mean it's impossible to make two boxes that have those specifications? Nope, but it does mean hidden variables can not be involved and that means something very weird is going on. Actually it would be quite easy to make a couple of boxes that behave like that, it's just not easy to understand how that could be. 

Photons behave in just this spooky manner, so to make the boxes all you need it 4 things:

1) A glorified light bulb, something that will make two photons of unspecified but identical polarizations moving in opposite directions so you can send one to each box. An excited calcium atom would do the trick, or you could turn a green photon into two identical lower energy red photons with a crystal of potassium dihydrogen phosphate.

2) A light detector sensitive enough to observe just one photon. Incidentally the human eye is not quite good enough to do that but frogs can, for frogs when light gets very weak it must stop getting dimmer and appears to flash instead. 

3) A polarizing filter, we've had these for well over a century.

4) Some gears and pulleys so that each time the rotary switch is advanced one position the filter is advanced by 30 degrees. This is because it's been known for many years that the amount of light polarized at 0 degrees that will make it through a polarizing filter set at X is [COS (x)]^2; and if X = 30 DEGREES (π/6 radians) then the value is .75; if the light is so dim that only one photon is sent at a time then that translates to the probability that any individual photon will make it through the filter is 75%.

The bottom line of all this is that there can not be something special about a specific photon, some internal difference, some hidden local variable that determines if it makes it through a filter or not. Thus if we ignore a superdeterministic conspiracy, as we should, then one of two things MUST be true:

1) The universe is not realistic, that is, things do NOT exist in one and only one state both before and after they are observed. In the case of Many Worlds it means the very look up table as described in the above cannot be printed in indelible ink but, because Many Worlds assumes that Schrodinger's Equation means what it says, the look up table itself not only can but must exist in many different versions both before and after a measurement is made.

2) The universe is non-local, that is, everything influences everything else and does so without regard for the distances involved or amount of time involved or even if the events happen in the past or the future; the future could influence the past. But because Many Worlds is non-realistic, and thus doesn't have a static lookup table, it has no need to resort to any of these non-local influences to explain experimental results.

Einstein liked non-locality even less than nondeterminism, I'm not sure how he'd feel about non-realistic theories like Many Worlds, the idea wasn't discovered until about 10 years after his death.

*****************

I'll have to read it again, and again, and possibly again, since I do not as yet understand it, and how you reached your conclusions at the end. AG

[Alan Grayson]

CMIIAW, but non-local means instantaneous action at a distance, so I don't see from your long post how you conclude that the future can influence the past. AG

[Alan Grayson]

You refer to experimental results of MW, but there are none, except for those in This World. Do you know what you're referring to? AG 

[Brent Meeker]

If event X influences event Y at the same time, i.e. instantaneously, in one reference frame then reference frames moving in the Y-to-X direction Y is before X.

Brent

[John Clark]

On Sun, Oct 13, 2024 at 9:34 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'll have to read it again, and again, and possibly again, since I do not as yet understand it, and how you reached your conclusions at the end. CMIIAW, but non-local means instantaneous action at a distance, so I don't see from your long post how you conclude that the future can influence the past. AG

Alice and Bob are in two spaceships not moving with respect to one another and they synchronize their clocks. They both have a magic gadget allowing them to send messages instantaneously, and they agree that when Alice's clock reads exactly 2 hours she will instantaneously send a simple arithmetic question to Bob that she will only pick seconds before she sends it.  Bob will then instantaneously send the answer to Alice. They shake hands then Bob accelerates away at 86.6% the speed of light but Alice does not. At that speed Bob's clock moves at only half the speed of Alice's.

Just seconds before Alice's Clock reads 2 hours she rolls a pair of dice to obtain two numbers and then sends the following instantaneous message to Bob "how much is 11+3" and she sees Bob receiveing the message at time two hours on her clock because the message is instantaneous. But Bob's clock is only running at half the speed of Alice's clock because he is going at 88.6c, so Bob receives Alice's message and sees Alice receive his instantaneous answer  "14". Bob sees Alice get the answer to her question one hour before she decided what exactly the question would be!

You could make this thought experiment even more dramatic by giving a young William Shakespeare a copy of all his published works before he had written anything, but then where did the information contained in those plays and poems come from? Something does not compute!  I must conclude that to avoid logical contradictions either sending messages instantaneously is impossible, in which case physics is local, or doing so creates a new branch to the multiverse. 

 John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

snc

 

 

[Alan Grayson]

Why not accept that physics is local?  AG 

[Alan Grayson]

I don't see that you raised this question in your long post, and I don't see how MW solves this problem. That is, is there any evidence that physics is non-local, that it allows instantaneous action at distance? And finally, if Bob is traveling away from Alice, don't their clocks cease to be synchronized, or are you already assuming that? AG

[Alan Grayson]

If their clocks aren't synchronized as Bob moves away from Alive, Bob cannot conclude that Alice received his reply an hour before she sent the question. Since the problem involves the assumption of instantaneous action at a distance, and that their clocks continue to be synchronized, since both assumptions are wrong, so is Bob's conclusion. AG

[John Clark]

On Mon, Oct 14, 2024 at 10:55 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Why not accept that physics is local?  AG 

I have no problem assuming faster than light messaging is impossible and thus physics is local, and that's one reason why I like Many Worlds, it's local, and one reason I  don't like pilot wave theory, it's not. 

 >  if Bob is traveling away from Alice, don't their clocks cease to be synchronized, or are you already assuming that? AG

Yes certainly, Bobs clock is running only half as fast as Alice's clock, but that non-synchronization causes no logical contradictions if instantaneous communication is impossible. But if it is possible then that opens up a great big can of worms that as far as I can see can have only one solution.  

 > I don't see how MW solves this problem. 

Just before a teenage William Shakespeare finds a copy of a book entitled "The Complete Works Of William Shakespeare" the multiverse branches, in one branch Shakespeare never finds the book and he composes all the plays and poems by himself, and in the other branch he just copies down what he sees in the book, and the information needed to do that came from another Shakespeare that lived in another world.    

> If their clocks aren't synchronized as Bob moves away from Alive, Bob cannot conclude that Alice received his reply an hour before she sent the question.

Bob knows Alice would send her question when the hands on her clock indicated two hours, but when Bob received the question and he sent his answer his clock only indicated one hour. Because both messages were instantaneous when Bob uses his telescope to look at the hands on Alice's clock they indicate one hour, and when he looks at her incoming message screen it says "the answer to your question how much is 11+3 is 14" which was one hour before Alice even thought of the question.  

  John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

wsd

[Alan Grayson]

Since the clocks aren't synchronized, when Bob looks at Alice's clock, it reads 2 hours, not 1 hour. So I don't see any contradiction to be resolved. Also, since SR is a local theory, and you can live with a local theory, why apply MW? You don't need it. Moreover, assuming there is a contradiction due to instantaneous propagation of information, I don't how MW solves this problem. The only problem I see, is that Bell experiments suggest the universe is non-local, and/or that QM is non-local. Do you agree? AGsd

[John Clark]

On Mon, Oct 14, 2024 at 3:39 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Since the clocks aren't synchronized, when Bob looks at Alice's clock, it reads 2 hours, not 1 hour. So I don't see any contradiction to be resolved.

In Special Relativity Bob sees Alice's clock running at half the speed of his clock, and Alice sees Bob's clock running it at half the speed of her clock, this is because both of them can think of themselves as being stationary and the other one as being the one that is moving close to the speed of light. This situation may seem odd but it is not logically paradoxical if instantaneous communication is impossible, but if it turns out to be possible then there are problems, serious problems. Bob looks at his clock and it says two hours, but he knows that Alice's clock must read one hour because it is running at half speed, and he knows that the instantaneous message receiving screen on Alice's spaceship must say "the answer to your question how much is 11+3 is 14" because Bob just sent that message and it is instantaneous. So Alice received the answer one hour before she thought of the question.

 

> Also, since SR is a local theory, and you can live with a local theory,

Many Worlds is also a local theory.  

 

> why apply MW? 

Because without MW Special Relativity would produce logical contradictions if instantaneous communication was possible.  

 

> You don't need it.

Many Worlds is compatible with non-locality but it doesn't require it, that's why it's called local. When you decide to turn left rather than right the universe splits, and you can imagine that the split propagates outward at the speed of light, or you can imagine that the split travels instantly, it makes no observable difference. So as far as locality is concerned Many Worlds can take it or leave it.   

 > The only problem I see, is that Bell experiments suggest the universe is non-local, and/or that QM is non-local. Do you agree? AGs

No, I do not agree! The violation of Bell's Inequality proves that if quantum mechanics is deterministic and local then it cannot be realistic. As I said before, the universe cannot be realistic and local and deterministic, at least one of those three things must be wrong but we don't know which one. I suspect realism is wrong but I could be wrong. I'm 85% sure Many Worlds is right, maybe 90%, but not 100%. 

  John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

rmw

 

[Alan Grayson]

On Monday, October 14, 2024 at 2:44:25 PM UTC-6 John Clark wrote:

On Mon, Oct 14, 2024 at 3:39 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Since the clocks aren't synchronized, when Bob looks at Alice's clock, it reads 2 hours, not 1 hour. So I don't see any contradiction to be resolved.

In Special Relativity Bob sees Alice's clock running at half the speed of his clock, and Alice sees Bob's clock running it at half the speed of her clock, this is because both of them can think of themselves as being stationary and the other one as being the one that is moving close to the speed of light. This situation may seem odd but it is not logically paradoxical if instantaneous communication is impossible, but if it turns out to be possible then there are problems, serious problems. Bob looks at his clock and it says two hours, but he knows that Alice's clock must read one hour because it is running at half speed, and he knows that the instantaneous message receiving screen on Alice's spaceship must say "the answer to your question how much is 11+3 is 14" because Bob just sent that message and it is instantaneous. So Alice received the answer one hour before she thought of the question.

 

> Also, since SR is a local theory, and you can live with a local theory,

Many Worlds is also a local theory.  

 

> why apply MW? 

Because without MW Special Relativity would produce logical contradictions if instantaneous communication was possible.  

 

> You don't need it.

Many Worlds is compatible with non-locality but it doesn't require it, that's why it's called local. When you decide to turn left rather than right the universe splits, and you can imagine that the split propagates outward at the speed of light,

 

Outward from the perspective of what world? Not well defined. AG

 

or you can imagine that the split travels instantly,

If instantly, then relativity violated. What's gained by this possibility? AG

 

it makes no observable difference. So as far as locality is concerned Many Worlds can take it or leave it.   

 > The only problem I see, is that Bell experiments suggest the universe is non-local, and/or that QM is non-local. Do you agree? AGs

No, I do not agree! The violation of Bell's Inequality proves that if quantum mechanics is deterministic and local then it cannot be realistic. As I said before, the universe cannot be realistic and local and deterministic, at least one of those three things must be wrong but we don't know which one.

You keep claiming this is true, but I haven't seen it proven, or if you proved it I didn't get it. Further, isn't it generally accepted that QM is non-local? I think it is since the wf extends infinitely in all spatial directions, and IMO any infinity in a theory implies non-locality. I thought Bell experiments prove there are no local hidden variables. If true, what exactly follows from this? This is something which confuses me. AG

 

I suspect realism is wrong but I could be wrong.

Realism can't be right if you believe Brent's interpretation of superposition, that a system being represented by it, is in ALL states of the superposition simultaneously. As I previously wrote, I don't believe this interpretation is correct. I believe the system is not in any of those states. AG 

I'm 85% sure Many Worlds is right, maybe 90%, but not 100%.  

Why do you need MW?  SR says instantaneous propagation is falsified. What value is there in introducing a non-testable theory? AG

r

[John Clark]

On Mon, Oct 14, 2024 at 8:53 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> The violation of Bell's Inequality proves that if quantum mechanics is deterministic and local then it cannot be realistic. As I said before, the universe cannot be realistic and local and deterministic, at least one of those three things must be wrong but we don't know which one.

> You keep claiming this is true, but I haven't seen it proven, or if you proved it I didn't get it.

Using nothing but high school algebra and trigonometry Bell proved in 1964 that it would be logically impossible to violate an inequality that he found IF you assume that things were deterministic, AND they existed in one and only one state before they were measured, AND messages could not be transmitted faster than light. But experiments show that his Inequality IS VIOLATED , therefore at least one of his three assumptions must be untrue 

I did my best to explain to you how Bell came up with his inequality but you still don't get it and I am sorry about that. But professional quantum physicists certainly get it, that's why two physicist got the Nobel Prize in 2022 for performing loophole free experiments proving that Bell's Inequality is indeed violated, there is no longer any doubt about it. 

It's just a fact, there may be consequences from violating Bell that some find philosophically unsettling, but that doesn't stop it from being a fact. You've either got to change your philosophy or decide that you don't mind having a philosophy that contains logical contradictions.      

 > isn't it generally accepted that QM is non-local? 

NO! It is UNIVERSALLY accepted that things could still be local IF messages can be sent faster than the speed of light, OR IF things can be in more than one definite state before they are measured. 

 

  > SR says instantaneous propagation is falsified. 

Special Relativity is a theory and in physics a theory can't falsify anything, only an experiment can do that. And Bell's inequality has been falsified, like it or not we're just going to have to live with the consequences of that fact.  

   John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

7d/

In Special Relativity Bob sees Alice's clock running at half the speed of his clock, and Alice sees Bob's clock running it at half the speed of her clock, this is because both of them can think of themselves as being stationary and the other one as being the one that is moving close to the speed of light. This situation may seem odd but it is not logically paradoxical if instantaneous communication is impossible, but if it turns out to be possible then there are problems, serious problems. Bob looks at his clock and it says two hours, but he knows that Alice's clock must read one hour because it is running at half speed, and he knows that the instantaneous message receiving screen on Alice's spaceship must say "the answer to your question how much is 11+3 is 14" because Bob just sent that message and it is instantaneous. So Alice received the answer one hour before she thought of the question.

 

The violation of Bell's Inequality proves that if quantum mechanics is deterministic and local then it cannot be realistic. As I said before, the universe cannot be realistic and local and deterministic, at least one of those three things must be wrong but we don't know which one.

[Alan Grayson]

On Tuesday, October 15, 2024 at 5:57:38 AM UTC-6 John Clark wrote:

On Mon, Oct 14, 2024 at 8:53 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> The violation of Bell's Inequality proves that if quantum mechanics is deterministic and local then it cannot be realistic. As I said before, the universe cannot be realistic and local and deterministic, at least one of those three things must be wrong but we don't know which one.

> You keep claiming this is true, but I haven't seen it proven, or if you proved it I didn't get it.

Using nothing but high school algebra and trigonometry Bell proved in 1964 that it would be logically impossible to violate an inequality that he found IF you assume that things were deterministic, AND they existed in one and only one state before they were measured, AND messages could not be transmitted faster than light. But experiments show that his Inequality IS VIOLATED , therefore at least one of his three assumptions must be untrue 

I did my best to explain to you how Bell came up with his inequality but you still don't get it and I am sorry about that.

You did that where; in your long post or a different one? If a different one, please post it again. TY, AG

 

But professional quantum physicists certainly get it, that's why two physicist got the Nobel Prize in 2022 for performing loophole free experiments proving that Bell's Inequality is indeed violated, there is no longer any doubt about it. 

It's just a fact, there may be consequences from violating Bell that some find philosophically unsettling, but that doesn't stop it from being a fact. You've either got to change your philosophy or decide that you don't mind having a philosophy that contains logical contradictions.      

 > isn't it generally accepted that QM is non-local? 

NO! It is UNIVERSALLY accepted that things could still be local IF messages can be sent faster than the speed of light, OR IF things can be in more than one definite state before they are measured. 

 

  > SR says instantaneous propagation is falsified. 

 

Special Relativity is a theory and in physics a theory can't falsify anything, only an experiment can do that. And Bell's inequality has been falsified, like it or not we're just going to have to live with the consequences of that fact.  

By "falsify" I meant that in SR causality is violated if instantaneous action at a distance is assumed. So if it's assumed, the future can effect the past. Is this what you think Bell experiments have established? AG

In Special Relativity Bob sees Alice's clock running at half the speed of his clock, and Alice sees Bob's clock running it at half the speed of her clock, this is because both of them can think of themselves as being stationary and the other one as being the one that is moving close to the speed of light. This situation may seem odd but it is not logically paradoxical if instantaneous communication is impossible,

You're making an error here in assuming Bob and Alic are equivalent, an error often made when analyzing the Twin Paradox. Only Bob experiences acceleration so they're not equivalent. But if you have both accelerating and then both ceasing to accelerate, the paradox can be resolved without assuming instantaneous action at a distance. I had a long discussion with Brent years ago on this, and he never used instantaneous action at a distance to resolve the apparent paradox. I didn't fully understand his argument but as I recall, it was based on violation of simultaneity. Maybe if he reads my comment, he will confirm what I am claiming. AG

 

but if it turns out to be possible then there are problems, serious problems. Bob looks at his clock and it says two hours, but he knows that Alice's clock must read one hour because it is running at half speed, and he knows that the instantaneous message receiving screen on Alice's spaceship must say "the answer to your question how much is 11+3 is 14" because Bob just sent that message and it is instantaneous. So Alice received the answer one hour before she thought of the question.,

In your original model of the situation, Bob has a telescope and views Alice's clock. He sees what Alice sees, namely her clock reading as 2 hours, not 1 hour. AG 

[John Clark]

On Tue, Oct 15, 2024 at 8:49 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> You're making an error here in assuming Bob and Alic are equivalent, an error often made when analyzing the Twin Paradox. Only Bob experiences acceleration so they're not equivalent. 

So start the experiment with Bob and Alice synchronizing their clocks, shaking hands and then both of them accelerating by the same amount but in opposite directions for X amount of time as read by their own clocks.  After that Alice would see that Bob's clock was running slow, and Bob would see that Alice's clock was running slow,  this may seem odd but effect never comes before cause unless messages could be sent instantaneously.

   John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis     

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/78c432ef-e2d1-4328-9a95-3d53eb249408n%40googlegroups.com.

[Alan Grayson]

On Tuesday, October 15, 2024 at 7:18:17 AM UTC-6 John Clark wrote:

On Tue, Oct 15, 2024 at 8:49 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> You're making an error here in assuming Bob and Alic are equivalent, an error often made when analyzing the Twin Paradox. Only Bob experiences acceleration so they're not equivalent. 

So start the experiment with Bob and Alice synchronizing their clocks, shaking hands and then both of them accelerating by the same amount but in opposite directions for X amount of time as read by their own clocks.  After that Alice would see that Bob's clock was running slow, and Bob would see that Alice's clock was running slow,  this may seem odd but effect never comes before cause unless messages could be sent instantaneously.

This is not how the apparent paradox is resolved. If it were, then SR would no longer be local and the future could effect the past, violating causality. Do you think this was Einstein's intent and belief as the content of SR? AG 

[Alan Grayson]

On Tuesday, October 15, 2024 at 7:56:51 AM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:

On Tuesday, October 15, 2024 at 7:18:17 AM UTC-6 John Clark wrote:

On Tue, Oct 15, 2024 at 8:49 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> You're making an error here in assuming Bob and Alic are equivalent, an error often made when analyzing the Twin Paradox. Only Bob experiences acceleration so they're not equivalent. 

So start the experiment with Bob and Alice synchronizing their clocks, shaking hands and then both of them accelerating by the same amount but in opposite directions for X amount of time as read by their own clocks.  After that Alice would see that Bob's clock was running slow, and Bob would see that Alice's clock was running slow,  this may seem odd but effect never comes before cause unless messages could be sent instantaneously.

This is not how the apparent paradox is resolved. If it were, then SR would no longer be local and the future could effect the past, violating causality. Do you think this was Einstein's intent and belief as the content of SR? AG 

So you're NOT assuming instantaneous propagation. How then do you resolve the "odd" result? Initially, Bob uses a telescope to view Alice's clock. In this case he sees what she sees. AG 

[John Clark]

On Tue, Oct 15, 2024 at 10:37 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> start the experiment with Bob and Alice synchronizing their clocks, shaking hands and then both of them accelerating by the same amount but in opposite directions for X amount of time as read by their own clocks.  After that Alice would see that Bob's clock was running slow, and Bob would see that Alice's clock was running slow,  this may seem odd but effect never comes before cause unless messages could be sent instantaneously.

 

> This is not how the apparent paradox is resolved.

It's resolved because although both see the  other's clock as running slower than their own clock, and they can't agree what "simultaneous" means, both of them agree that cause always comes before effect, neither of them see time running backwards, and neither of them can returned to the spot where they started their journey before they started it. The situation is still odd because watching a friend go close to the speed of light is radically different from our everyday experience, but it produces no paradoxes.  

By the way, I don't think it will happen but if a way to send messages instantaneously was ever discovered that would be extremely strong evidence that Many Worlds must be correct because, as I explained before, it's the only way I can think of of making that particular logical paradox go away, if anybody can think of another way I'd love to hear it. However if somebody proved that instantaneous communication is physically impossible (I have no idea how you'd do that but never mind) that would not indicate Many Worlds is wrong because, although it doesn't need non-locality to work, it isn't destroyed by it either. As far as locality is concerned Many Worlds can take it or leave it. By contrast pilot wave theory needs non-locality or it won't work.  

> If it were, then SR would no longer be local and the future could effect the past, violating causality.

Special Relativity doesn't violate causality because it says nothing can travel faster than light do to the fact that the faster you go the larger your effective mass becomes, so it would take an infinite amount of energy to reach the speed of light, and that much energy is simply not available in our universe.   

> So why do you insist that messages can be sent instantaneously?

What the hell?!  

 John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

hwt

[Alan Grayson]

You're responding to a post I deleted. AG 

[Quentin Anciaux]

It's a mailing list,  you can't delete your message once sent to the list, they're delivered to all email addresses subscribed to the list... think before posting, there are no deletes.

 John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

hwt

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/3d54dad1-0a7f-4acc-9a8d-25e13e7aa934n%40googlegroups.com.

[Alan Grayson]

But didn't you conclude that Alice gets Bob's answer before she sent the question? If so, doesn't that require instantaneous transfer of information? If not, what were you trying to prove with this thought experiment? AG

[Alan Grayson]

Ostensibly, applying SR, Bob concludes Alice's clock is running slower than his, and vice-versa for Alice, so you conclude Alice get Bob's response to her question before she sends it. Obviously, there's a major problem here and I suspect it's related to your interpretation of relative clock rates in SR. I can't say exactly what's the problem with your interpretation of relative clock rates. Nor do I understand what this has to do with the viability of MW. I hope you have more to say on this topic. AG 

[Alan Grayson]

On Wednesday, October 16, 2024 at 11:14:53 PM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:

On Wednesday, October 16, 2024 at 7:51:20 AM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:

On Wednesday, October 16, 2024 at 7:04:59 AM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:

On Wednesday, October 16, 2024 at 5:17:25 AM UTC-6 John Clark wrote:

On Tue, Oct 15, 2024 at 10:37 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> start the experiment with Bob and Alice synchronizing their clocks, shaking hands and then both of them accelerating by the same amount but in opposite directions for X amount of time as read by their own clocks.  After that Alice would see that Bob's clock was running slow, and Bob would see that Alice's clock was running slow,  this may seem odd but effect never comes before cause unless messages could be sent instantaneously.

 

> This is not how the apparent paradox is resolved.

It's resolved because although both see the  other's clock as running slower than their own clock, and they can't agree what "simultaneous" means, both of them agree that cause always comes before effect, neither of them see time running backwards, and neither of them can returned to the spot where they started their journey before they started it. The situation is still odd because watching a friend go close to the speed of light is radically different from our everyday experience, but it produces no paradoxes.  

By the way, I don't think it will happen but if a way to send messages instantaneously was ever discovered that would be extremely strong evidence that Many Worlds must be correct because, as I explained before, it's the only way I can think of of making that particular logical paradox go away, if anybody can think of another way I'd love to hear it. However if somebody proved that instantaneous communication is physically impossible (I have no idea how you'd do that but never mind) that would not indicate Many Worlds is wrong because, although it doesn't need non-locality to work, it isn't destroyed by it either. As far as locality is concerned Many Worlds can take it or leave it. By contrast pilot wave theory needs non-locality or it won't work.  

> If it were, then SR would no longer be local and the future could effect the past, violating causality.

Special Relativity doesn't violate causality because it says nothing can travel faster than light do to the fact that the faster you go the larger your effective mass becomes, so it would take an infinite amount of energy to reach the speed of light, and that much energy is simply not available in our universe.   

> So why do you insist that messages can be sent instantaneously?

What the hell?!  

You're responding to a post I deleted. AG 

Why "What the hell?!" You write above that the alleged paradox goes away only if instantaneous action is possible, which you are skeptical about. So I did overstate what you think is going on here. However, the ostensible paradox might be caused by your misinterpretation of relative clock rates in SR. AG

[John Clark]

On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 1:14 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Ostensibly, applying SR, Bob concludes Alice's clock is running slower than his, and vice-versa for Alice

Yes.

> so you conclude Alice get Bob's response to her question before she sends it.

No. Watching somebody's Clock that is running slower than your clock does NOT mean you are observing their time running backwards.  

> Obviously, there's a major problem here and I suspect it's related to your interpretation of relative clock rates in SR.

It's odd, no doubt about it, but it causes no physical paradoxes IF nothing can travel through space faster than the speed of light. Space itself can move at any speed without producing paradoxes. If there existed particles that moved through space faster than the speed of light (called Tachyons ) and it was possible for us to interact with them, then causality would be violated. And if Bob and Alice used tachyons instead of light photons to observe then they would see the others clock moving backwards, not just slowing down.  And you'd be able to observe and even kill your grandfather 10 years before he met your grandmother, and you'd have to deal with all the paradoxes that would produce. But as far as we can tell Tachyons do not exist. 

 

> I can't say exactly what's the problem with your interpretation of relative clock rates. Nor do I understand what this has to do with the viability of MW.

I was just making the point that if Tachyons existed (and I do NOT think they do) then the only way I can think of to resolve the grandfather paradox is through Many Worlds. If you or anybody else can think of another way to resolve it I'm all ears.  

John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

deq

[Alan Grayson]

On Thursday, October 17, 2024 at 5:20:26 AM UTC-6 John Clark wrote:

On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 1:14 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Ostensibly, applying SR, Bob concludes Alice's clock is running slower than his, and vice-versa for Alice

Yes.

> so you conclude Alice get Bob's response to her question before she sends it.

No. Watching somebody's Clock that is running slower than your clock does NOT mean you are observing their time running backwards.  

I know that! You claimed from Bob's pov, Alice's clock is running slower (not running backwards), and when he sends his reply his clock reads 2, whereas Alice's clock reads 1, before she sent the question. I remember that clearly. No one claimed her clock was running backwards. So, without instantaneous anything how is the paradox resolved, and how is this related to MW? TY, AG

> Obviously, there's a major problem here and I suspect it's related to your interpretation of relative clock rates in SR.

It's odd, no doubt about it, but it causes no physical paradoxes IF nothing can travel through space faster than the speed of light.

Ostensibly, there is a paradox and you seem unable to resolve it. Claiming it is "odd" fails to resolve the matter. I think Brent knows the solution. AG

[Quentin Anciaux]

Le jeu. 17 oct. 2024, 14:14, Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> a écrit :

On Thursday, October 17, 2024 at 5:20:26 AM UTC-6 John Clark wrote:

On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 1:14 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Ostensibly, applying SR, Bob concludes Alice's clock is running slower than his, and vice-versa for Alice

Yes.

> so you conclude Alice get Bob's response to her question before she sends it.

No. Watching somebody's Clock that is running slower than your clock does NOT mean you are observing their time running backwards.  

I know that! You claimed from Bob's pov, Alice's clock is running slower (not running backwards), and when he sends his reply his clock reads 2, whereas Alice's clock reads 1, before she sent the question. I remember that clearly. No one claimed her clock was running backwards. So, without instantaneous anything how is the paradox resolved, and how is this related to MW? TY, AG

The paradox is resoved if there is mo ftl... please do a work on yourself and try to understand what others are saying... 

> Obviously, there's a major problem here and I suspect it's related to your interpretation of relative clock rates in SR.

It's odd, no doubt about it, but it causes no physical paradoxes IF nothing can travel through space faster than the speed of light.

Ostensibly, there is a paradox and you seem unable to resolve it. Claiming it is "odd" fails to resolve the matter. I think Brent knows the solution. AG

 

Space itself can move at any speed without producing paradoxes. If there existed particles that moved through space faster than the speed of light (called Tachyons ) and it was possible for us to interact with them, then causality would be violated. And if Bob and Alice used tachyons instead of light photons to observe then they would see the others clock moving backwards, not just slowing down.  And you'd be able to observe and even kill your grandfather 10 years before he met your grandmother, and you'd have to deal with all the paradoxes that would produce. But as far as we can tell Tachyons do not exist. 

 

> I can't say exactly what's the problem with your interpretation of relative clock rates. Nor do I understand what this has to do with the viability of MW.

I was just making the point that if Tachyons existed (and I do NOT think they do) then the only way I can think of to resolve the grandfather paradox is through Many Worlds. If you or anybody else can think of another way to resolve it I'm all ears.  

John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

deq

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/3cf9704c-f6b7-4b5a-995c-bf4f506f9488n%40googlegroups.com.

[Alan Grayson]

On Thursday, October 17, 2024 at 7:31:32 AM UTC-6 Quentin Anciaux wrote:

Le jeu. 17 oct. 2024, 14:14, Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> a écrit :

On Thursday, October 17, 2024 at 5:20:26 AM UTC-6 John Clark wrote:

On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 1:14 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Ostensibly, applying SR, Bob concludes Alice's clock is running slower than his, and vice-versa for Alice

Yes.

> so you conclude Alice get Bob's response to her question before she sends it.

No. Watching somebody's Clock that is running slower than your clock does NOT mean you are observing their time running backwards.  

I know that! You claimed from Bob's pov, Alice's clock is running slower (not running backwards), and when he sends his reply his clock reads 2, whereas Alice's clock reads 1, before she sent the question. I remember that clearly. No one claimed her clock was running backwards. So, without instantaneous anything how is the paradox resolved, and how is this related to MW? TY, AG

The paradox is resoved if there is mo ftl... please do a work on yourself and try to understand what others are saying... 

Anyone can say anything, including yourself, but that's not a proof of anything. At best it's claim. AG 

[Quentin Anciaux]

Le jeu. 17 oct. 2024, 15:56, Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> a écrit :

On Thursday, October 17, 2024 at 7:31:32 AM UTC-6 Quentin Anciaux wrote:

Le jeu. 17 oct. 2024, 14:14, Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> a écrit :

On Thursday, October 17, 2024 at 5:20:26 AM UTC-6 John Clark wrote:

On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 1:14 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Ostensibly, applying SR, Bob concludes Alice's clock is running slower than his, and vice-versa for Alice

Yes.

> so you conclude Alice get Bob's response to her question before she sends it.

No. Watching somebody's Clock that is running slower than your clock does NOT mean you are observing their time running backwards.  

I know that! You claimed from Bob's pov, Alice's clock is running slower (not running backwards), and when he sends his reply his clock reads 2, whereas Alice's clock reads 1, before she sent the question. I remember that clearly. No one claimed her clock was running backwards. So, without instantaneous anything how is the paradox resolved, and how is this related to MW? TY, AG

The paradox is resoved if there is mo ftl... please do a work on yourself and try to understand what others are saying... 

Anyone can say anything, including yourself, but that's not a proof of anything. At best it's claim. AG 

? If there is no ftl, there is no paradox, ftl brings a paradox because the simultaneity plan is different for alice and bob. That's just SR, that's just what JC said and he's not claiming anything afaics.

> Obviously, there's a major problem here and I suspect it's related to your interpretation of relative clock rates in SR.

It's odd, no doubt about it, but it causes no physical paradoxes IF nothing can travel through space faster than the speed of light.

Ostensibly, there is a paradox and you seem unable to resolve it. Claiming it is "odd" fails to resolve the matter. I think Brent knows the solution. AG

 

Space itself can move at any speed without producing paradoxes. If there existed particles that moved through space faster than the speed of light (called Tachyons ) and it was possible for us to interact with them, then causality would be violated. And if Bob and Alice used tachyons instead of light photons to observe then they would see the others clock moving backwards, not just slowing down.  And you'd be able to observe and even kill your grandfather 10 years before he met your grandmother, and you'd have to deal with all the paradoxes that would produce. But as far as we can tell Tachyons do not exist. 

 

> I can't say exactly what's the problem with your interpretation of relative clock rates. Nor do I understand what this has to do with the viability of MW.

I was just making the point that if Tachyons existed (and I do NOT think they do) then the only way I can think of to resolve the grandfather paradox is through Many Worlds. If you or anybody else can think of another way to resolve it I'm all ears.  

John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

deq

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/3cf9704c-f6b7-4b5a-995c-bf4f506f9488n%40googlegroups.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/46236c0d-718a-41c9-a050-b180fdb574f9n%40googlegroups.com.

[Alan Grayson]

On Thursday, October 17, 2024 at 7:56:13 AM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:

On Thursday, October 17, 2024 at 7:31:32 AM UTC-6 Quentin Anciaux wrote:

Le jeu. 17 oct. 2024, 14:14, Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> a écrit :

On Thursday, October 17, 2024 at 5:20:26 AM UTC-6 John Clark wrote:

On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 1:14 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Ostensibly, applying SR, Bob concludes Alice's clock is running slower than his, and vice-versa for Alice

Yes.

> so you conclude Alice get Bob's response to her question before she sends it.

No. Watching somebody's Clock that is running slower than your clock does NOT mean you are observing their time running backwards.  

I know that! You claimed from Bob's pov, Alice's clock is running slower (not running backwards), and when he sends his reply his clock reads 2, whereas Alice's clock reads 1, before she sent the question. I remember that clearly. No one claimed her clock was running backwards. So, without instantaneous anything how is the paradox resolved, and how is this related to MW? TY, AG

The paradox is resoved if there is mo ftl... please do a work on yourself and try to understand what others are saying... 

Anyone can say anything, including yourself, but that's not a proof of anything. At best it's claim. AG 

Actually, since SR does not allow instantaneous anything, your facile argument does not even qualify as an argument. What resolves the apparent paradox is the breakdown of simultaneity. The question remaining is exactly how to apply that breakdown to see the error. You're welcome. AG 

[Alan Grayson]

On Thursday, October 17, 2024 at 8:05:10 AM UTC-6 Quentin Anciaux wrote:

Le jeu. 17 oct. 2024, 15:56, Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> a écrit :

On Thursday, October 17, 2024 at 7:31:32 AM UTC-6 Quentin Anciaux wrote:

Le jeu. 17 oct. 2024, 14:14, Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> a écrit :

On Thursday, October 17, 2024 at 5:20:26 AM UTC-6 John Clark wrote:

On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 1:14 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Ostensibly, applying SR, Bob concludes Alice's clock is running slower than his, and vice-versa for Alice

Yes.

> so you conclude Alice get Bob's response to her question before she sends it.

No. Watching somebody's Clock that is running slower than your clock does NOT mean you are observing their time running backwards.  

I know that! You claimed from Bob's pov, Alice's clock is running slower (not running backwards), and when he sends his reply his clock reads 2, whereas Alice's clock reads 1, before she sent the question. I remember that clearly. No one claimed her clock was running backwards. So, without instantaneous anything how is the paradox resolved, and how is this related to MW? TY, AG

The paradox is resoved if there is mo ftl... please do a work on yourself and try to understand what others are saying... 

Anyone can say anything, including yourself, but that's not a proof of anything. At best it's a claim. AG 

? If there is no ftl, there is no paradox, ftl brings a paradox because the simultaneity plan is different for alice and bob. That's just SR, that's just what JC said and he's not claiming anything afaics.

Another claim. The only thing lacking is a proof. Moreover, you're factually mistaken. There surely IS an apparent paradox without FTL. The paradox is how can Bob and Alice see the other's clock running slower if we consider a scenario where they pass each other. AG 

[John Clark]

On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 8:14 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> You claimed from Bob's pov, Alice's clock is running slower (not running backwards),

Yes, although he would see the clock running backwards IF things could go faster than light. 

> and when he sends his reply his clock reads 2, whereas Alice's clock reads 1,

Before the experiment started Alice and Bob agreed that when Bob's clock reads 2 he would send a message to Alice. And from Bob's point of view that is exactly what happened. Bob knows that when his clock read 2 and he sent the message her clock must've only read 1 because her clock was running at only half the speed of his clock. And so she must've received the message when her clock said 1 PLUS however much time it took for the message to travel between the two spaceships, which have both been moving at 86.6% the speed of light but in opposite directions since the experiment began, which was two hours ago according to both of the clocks. And because they both believe in special relativity, they both realize it would also be 2 hours according to the clock of a stationary observer that underwent no acceleration and was midway between the two spaceships.  

That stationary observer would say the spaceships were 1.732 light hours distant from each other after two hours when the message was sent. Thus IF the message does not travel faster than the speed of light THEN it's going to take LONGER than one hour to travel that distance. So Bob will receive Alice's message at time 1 plus some number that is greater than 1 depending on exactly how fast the message was going, and that would be sometime after 2. And 2 was the time when the message was sent. Cause proceeds affect, causality is preserved and Alice sees no Paradox. A similar argument could be made with regard to Bob's point of view.

 

>  No one claimed her clock was running backwards.

But that is exactly what you would see IF AND ONLY IF particles that move faster than light existed and you could observe things with it.  

  John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

poe

[Alan Grayson]

What about the case of two observers moving toward each other, and each seeing the other's clock running slower as they pass each other? An apparent paradox? How is this situation resolved, assuming no FTL? AG 

[John Clark]

On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 10:59 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> What about the case of two observers moving toward each other, and each seeing the other's clock running slower as they pass each other? An apparent paradox? How is this situation resolved, assuming no FTL? AG 

In the previous thought experiment for the sake of simplicity we were assuming that the acceleration phase was over, and that the two clocks were in inertial frames of reference. But unless the rate of acceleration was enormous it would’ve had to start when the spaceships were very far apart to reach 86.6% of the speed of light before the spaceships passed each other and before the clocks on the spaceship said two hours had elapsed. And if they were that far apart then the preceding argument would still be relevant.

But If the acceleration WAS enormous, then new and complicated things start to happen.  For example, if you’re undergoing very high acceleration (or alternatively if you're in a very strong gravitational field) and you look at somebody’s clock that is undergoing less acceleration than you (or in a weaker gravitational field) then you will observe that their clock is running FASTER than your clock not slower.

 

  John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

xtm
poe

[Brent Meeker]

On 10/17/2024 7:16 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Thursday, October 17, 2024 at 8:05:10 AM UTC-6 Quentin Anciaux wrote:

Le jeu. 17 oct. 2024, 15:56, Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> a écrit :

On Thursday, October 17, 2024 at 7:31:32 AM UTC-6 Quentin Anciaux wrote:

Le jeu. 17 oct. 2024, 14:14, Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> a écrit :

On Thursday, October 17, 2024 at 5:20:26 AM UTC-6 John Clark wrote:

On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 1:14 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Ostensibly, applying SR, Bob concludes Alice's clock is running slower than his, and vice-versa for Alice

Yes.

> so you conclude Alice get Bob's response to her question before she sends it.

No. Watching somebody's Clock that is running slower than your clock does NOT mean you are observing their time running backwards.  

I know that! You claimed from Bob's pov, Alice's clock is running slower (not running backwards), and when he sends his reply his clock reads 2, whereas Alice's clock reads 1, before she sent the question. I remember that clearly. No one claimed her clock was running backwards. So, without instantaneous anything how is the paradox resolved, and how is this related to MW? TY, AG

The paradox is resoved if there is mo ftl... please do a work on yourself and try to understand what others are saying... 

Anyone can say anything, including yourself, but that's not a proof of anything. At best it's a claim. AG 

? If there is no ftl, there is no paradox, ftl brings a paradox because the simultaneity plan is different for alice and bob. That's just SR, that's just what JC said and he's not claiming anything afaics.

Another claim. The only thing lacking is a proof. Moreover, you're factually mistaken. There IS an apparent paradox without FTL. The paradox is how can Bob and Alice see the other's clock running slower. AG

That's not a paradox and was only so named because it confounded Newtonian intuition.  If you plot the ticking of two moving clocks along their worldlines and then Lorentz transform your diagram you seem that it is inevitable that each sees the other's clock as running slow.  What irritates me is you are full demands for proof, but never do the work to prove something to yourself.

Brent

[Alan Grayson]

On Thursday, October 17, 2024 at 4:43:31 PM UTC-6 Brent Meeker wrote:

On 10/17/2024 7:16 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Thursday, October 17, 2024 at 8:05:10 AM UTC-6 Quentin Anciaux wrote:

Le jeu. 17 oct. 2024, 15:56, Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> a écrit :

On Thursday, October 17, 2024 at 7:31:32 AM UTC-6 Quentin Anciaux wrote:

Le jeu. 17 oct. 2024, 14:14, Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> a écrit :

On Thursday, October 17, 2024 at 5:20:26 AM UTC-6 John Clark wrote:

On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 1:14 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Ostensibly, applying SR, Bob concludes Alice's clock is running slower than his, and vice-versa for Alice

Yes.

> so you conclude Alice get Bob's response to her question before she sends it.

No. Watching somebody's Clock that is running slower than your clock does NOT mean you are observing their time running backwards.  

I know that! You claimed from Bob's pov, Alice's clock is running slower (not running backwards), and when he sends his reply his clock reads 2, whereas Alice's clock reads 1, before she sent the question. I remember that clearly. No one claimed her clock was running backwards. So, without instantaneous anything how is the paradox resolved, and how is this related to MW? TY, AG

The paradox is resoved if there is mo ftl... please do a work on yourself and try to understand what others are saying... 

Anyone can say anything, including yourself, but that's not a proof of anything. At best it's a claim. AG 

? If there is no ftl, there is no paradox, ftl brings a paradox because the simultaneity plan is different for alice and bob. That's just SR, that's just what JC said and he's not claiming anything afaics.

Another claim. The only thing lacking is a proof. Moreover, you're factually mistaken. There IS an apparent paradox without FTL. The paradox is how can Bob and Alice see the other's clock running slower. AG

That's not a paradox and was only so named because it confounded Newtonian intuition. 

I wrote APPARENT PARADOX. Best to read carefully before throwing stones. AG

 

If you plot the ticking of two moving clocks along their worldlines and then Lorentz transform your diagram you seem that it is inevitable that each sees the other's clock as running slow.

 

Yes, that's REALLY obvious. Let me say it again. What you write above is OBVIOUS. And in fact one doesn't need worldlines to see that once one knows that in SR a moving clock appears to run at a slower rate compared to the clock rate of a stationary observer. HOWEVER, it surely appears inherently contradictory if two observers moving in opposite directions, pass by each other, and each views the other's clock as running slower. This is the issue I'd like to resolve, but don't know how. So I ask the "experts", some of whom might reside on this MB, and often suffer undeserved mockery when my question goes over their heads (since they can't distinguish what they know, from what they don't know). AG

 

  What irritates me is you are full demands for proof, but never do the work to prove something to yourself.

Like I just wrote, I have no clue how to prove what I want to understand, and now I see you have no clue what the/my problem is. AG

OTOH,  I did argue something important and to some extent original, but it seems to have gone over your head. Contrary to your model of the origin of universe which I showed implies a type of singularity at the origin IF you maintain belief in an infinite spatial universe, emerging instantaneously, which is flat, and also affirms the BB. This set of ideas is inherently contradictory. So I offered a model with NO singularity at the origin if we assume a beginning that is finite in spatial extent and not flat, which is also consistent with the BB. Theories with infinities are generally considered highly problematic and likely erroneous where the infinities surface, and in the case under discussion there's a consensus in the physics community that the BB occurred, but this is contradicted by the generally accepted assumption that it is also flat and therefore spatially infinite. You might not understand what I am now saying. I will explain it again if you're interested. One final point; previously you appeared irate when I asserted that the observable universe is finite in spatial extent. So I did you the service to remind you that the observable universe is in fact finite in spatial extent, having been measured as 46 BLY in every direction (from every location within). AG

[Brent Meeker]

On 10/17/2024 7:35 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Thursday, October 17, 2024 at 4:43:31 PM UTC-6 Brent Meeker wrote:

On 10/17/2024 7:16 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:

Another claim. The only thing lacking is a proof. Moreover, you're factually mistaken. There IS an apparent paradox without FTL. The paradox is how can Bob and Alice see the other's clock running slower. AG

That's not a paradox and was only so named because it confounded Newtonian intuition. 

I wrote APPARENT PARADOX. Best to read carefully before throwing stones. AG

 

If you plot the ticking of two moving clocks along their worldlines and then Lorentz transform your diagram you seem that it is inevitable that each sees the other's clock as running slow.

 

Yes, that's REALLY obvious. Let me say it again. What you write above is OBVIOUS. And in fact one doesn't need worldlines to see that once one knows that in SR a moving clock appears to run at a slower rate compared to the clock rate of a stationary observer. HOWEVER, it surely appears inherently contradictory if two observers moving in opposite directions, pass by each other, and each views the other's clock as running slower. This is the issue I'd like to resolve, but don't know how. So I ask the "experts", some of whom might reside on this MB, and often suffer undeserved mockery when my question goes over their heads (since they can't distinguish what they know, from what they don't know). AG

 

  What irritates me is you are full demands for proof, but never do the work to prove something to yourself.

Like I just wrote, I have no clue how to prove what I want to understand, and now I see you have no clue what the/my problem is. AG

You do have a clue.  In fact you have a recipe, as I posted above, "... plot the ticking of two moving clocks along their worldlines and then Lorentz transform your diagram."

Brent

[Alan Grayson]

I do? But you state above that " ... you [will} see that it is inevitable that each sees the other's clock as running slow." This I already know. Later today I'll explain my problem with this issue. AG