The motivated Assupmtion
- Thread starter BrunosStar
- Start date
-
- Tags
- assupmtion motivated
rwald
Unregistered
R
The term I've invented to describe posts such as the one Martinm just made is "supercranial." Think about it.
Personally, I prefer the train example to show that relativity prevents any universally-recognized sequence of events. (Not that this necessarily has any bearing on what Martinm said. I really don't know either way.) Imagine a train car with a table down the middle of it. Two diplomats are at the ends of the table, one at the front end (with respect to the train's motion) and one at the rear end. A light bulb has been placed in the middle of the table, and the diplomats agree to sign a treaty as soon as they see the light. In their reference frame, they sign the treaty at the same time, since they're both equally distant from the bulb and c is constant. However, for someone watching the train from the station, the person in the rear signed the treaty first. Since the car was moving from the time the bulb turned on to the time it reached the diplomats, it traveled a different distance for each. And since c is still constant, that means that the diplomat in the rear saw the light first.
Though this seems to be a paradox, such is the world governed by relativity.
Personally, I prefer the train example to show that relativity prevents any universally-recognized sequence of events. (Not that this necessarily has any bearing on what Martinm said. I really don't know either way.) Imagine a train car with a table down the middle of it. Two diplomats are at the ends of the table, one at the front end (with respect to the train's motion) and one at the rear end. A light bulb has been placed in the middle of the table, and the diplomats agree to sign a treaty as soon as they see the light. In their reference frame, they sign the treaty at the same time, since they're both equally distant from the bulb and c is constant. However, for someone watching the train from the station, the person in the rear signed the treaty first. Since the car was moving from the time the bulb turned on to the time it reached the diplomats, it traveled a different distance for each. And since c is still constant, that means that the diplomat in the rear saw the light first.
Though this seems to be a paradox, such is the world governed by relativity.
RichardR
Master Poster
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2001
- Messages
- 2,274
Your referenced article crashed my browser every time I looked at anything other than the abstract. And that did not cover forcing an outcome of spin.BrunosStar said:
Can you please explain, in plain words, how one forces the entangled particle into an up or a down spin?
FutileJester
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2002
- Messages
- 274
BrunosStar,
Forget all the relativity and quantum computing for a minute, and let's go back to a previous unanswered question. Why this explanation? Why not any of the other explanations about possible ET life? When there is no evidence, on what do you base your belief?
Forget all the relativity and quantum computing for a minute, and let's go back to a previous unanswered question. Why this explanation? Why not any of the other explanations about possible ET life? When there is no evidence, on what do you base your belief?
BrunosStar
Unregistered
B
Martinm said:
So you're saying because sign of the result of the expression is reversed for velocities greater than c means you traveled back in time? What you've just described is the effect of two clocks, each running at different rates, measuring the same event. In effect you confuse causality with the ability to collect information.
Given a frame and an EPR transmission system. The transmitter is triggered by the interval of one second from an ordinary clock. The receiver turns on a light indicating the transmission has been received. Every time you run this experiment the EPR receiver appears to have turned on the light before the clock ticked! This is because we would see the light from the EPR receiver before our clock could tell us it ticked. If we measured the difference in time it would always be negative with respect to our clock. It has nothing to do with causality; it has every thing to do with who gets there first! Even the equations you expressed show this to be true, the slower clock reads a negative time when compared to the faster clock. But the event never happened back in time, it happen faster than the instruments could detect the event! It would surely seem like things were happening in our past, but they're happening faster than we can sense them.
To give you a more classical example; if we use a radio transmitter and a speaker to communicate the clock tick, we would experience the same effect. The light would turn on before we would hear the speaker sound. If we measured the time between the sound reaching our ears and the light reaching our eyes it would be negative.
Bottom line all the Lorentz transforms or cone diagrams aren't going to change the very basic premise of time dilation. Time is cause and effect, time dilation is due to the increased separation between any two points in a frame where there is motion or gravity. The increased length of the path of any reaction slows the rate of that reaction when compared to other frames that have less gravity (flatter space) or slower motion. Given a scenario of FTL the distance between any two points would be even greater than that of the speed of light, reactions that happen at the speed of light would not happen, time would stop.
Hate to burn your QED, but your mistake was not realizing you are collecting information with a slower clock.
Bruno
BrunosStar
Unregistered
B
RichardR said:
Filter for electrons with a particular spin. You must have a trapped entangled particle, a storage device if you will. The trap is such that, the polarized electrons with spin x, are applied to the stored particle. Because of the Pauli exclusion principle, the electron in the trap will be forced to the spin that is opposite of the polarized electron.
That’s as basic and as plain as I can make.
Bruno
FutileJester
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2002
- Messages
- 274
Well BillyJoe, I tried. Looks like BrunosStar is going to continue to ignore what should be an easy question. I guess the Raelians were right about those Ouranos believers; I should have trusted them from the beginning. 
BrunosStar said:
Not exactly. I'm saying that for two events separated by spacelike intervals observers travelling wrt each other at greater than a critical velocity will disagree on which event happened first.
Apples and oranges. What you describe occurs in a single frame of reference. Knowing the speed of light and that of the ftl signal, one could calculate the exact times at which each event occured, regardless of the order in which they are seen to occur. All observers in that frame of reference would agree on the results. It is those results to which my calculations refer.
Slower clock? Faster clock? Which is which?
A bizarre statement, given that time dilation is a consequence derived from the Lorentz transformations.
As to your previous assertions that Einstein never drew the conclusion I have, get hold of a copy of his paper On the Relativity Principle and the Conclusions Drawn From It. Makes for interesting reading.
BrunosStar
Unregistered
B
FutileJester said:
The explanation on the site solves some critical problems for an ET to be here.
1. How does ET find us amongst billions of stars?
2. How does ET overcome the problems of the energy to reach some reasonable speed of light?
3. Given that the "project" of exploring the galaxy would take hundreds of thousands of years. How does ET solve the economic and social incentive issues?
Because Ouranosism answers those questions, the belief or the entertaining, of the ET issue is can be taken little more seriously. As oppose to other UFO explanations that do not answer those questions.
Bruno
BrunosStar
Unregistered
B
Martinm said:
Then we're on the same page. There is no time travel, as in the movie "The Time Machine".
Bruno
BrunosStar said:
I can answer these questions just as well. And without any support for my theories! Watch
1. Because they have a special ET dowsing rod! Serious!
2. Because they can apparate like in Harry Potter books. I've seen it yep!
3. Obviously, ET has "evolved" into a utopian society. Duh!
I have answered the questions! Do I get a brownie or something? And my answers are supported by many people! How can so many be wrong? They cannot!
BrunosStar
Unregistered
B
Denise said:
You may be able to answer the questions with nonsense, but you couldn't answer them with a solution that is based on observed physics. Remember the site does say the explanation is based on physcis that has been observed and documented by science.
Bruno
FutileJester
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2002
- Messages
- 274
BrunosStar said:
You say 'take a little more seriously', but that's a very soft version of the language used on the site. This site is promoted as 'the truth'. It claims that ET contact either has happened or inevitably will happen (although most of the site strongly implies that it has already happened). Ouranosism is not saying 'this could be'; it is saying 'this is'. That's simply far to strong of a statement to make about anything for which there is no evidence. We don't even have a unified theory of physics yet; how can we possibly say with certainty what ET life will be like?
What is your position on the truth of the statements of Ouranosism? Does it represent the way things are? Does it represent the way things must be? Or does it represent one of many ideas supported by plausible physics?
If the latter, we basically agree, although I would quibble on some of the details. But this is certainly not the position implied by the Ouranos site. If the site were intended to be speculative, then it would be tolerant of other speculations and wouldn't bandy about words like 'truth'. If it's not speculative, then it's pure religion, in that it promotes the truth while offering no evidence.
In short, plausible does not equal true. I've read hard sci fi stories that are at least as plausible as Ouranos. They're fun, and I prefer the ones that are well grounded in science. But that doesn't mean they're true.
BrunosStar said:
I don't think we are, you know. If we cannot determine which of two events occurred first, but it is possible to send a signal from one to the other, it is entirely possible for effect to precede cause. And we haven't even got into CTC's yet.
BrunosStar
Unregistered
B
Martinm said:
Not at all, first of all, other than the FTL signal, such as EPR, is moving faster than light. EPR can affect a partnered entangled particle FTL, but the ability to detect the change can only happen classically. By this I mean the recieving entangled particle communciates the change at c. So the cause is always preceding the effect. The ability to detect it is happening at a much slower rate of c (the slower clock).
Even under your scenario, the cause sends the effect on both ends, so if one doesn't send a signal the other will not sense anything. If both do not send a signal, neither will sense a signal. So cause always precedes effect, only trying to discern juxtaposition in relation to some reference cannot be determine.
Bruno
Maybe I'm too slow to grasp the implications of this entangled particle thing, so let me ask a couple of questions.
First, it seems that the proposal is to prep a batch of particle pairs and separate them. One half the batch goes into the rocket and is blasted 50 light years away, the other half stays with me. I now have at my end a pile of 1's and 0's, with their partners far, far away.
I set some sort of trap that sorts my particles into two piles, with all the 1's in one pile and the 0's in the other. Is this right?
Assuming it is, I want to send a message to my rocket, but I want to do it NOW. I want to send a "1-1-0-0" through entaglement radio. So, I reach into my two piles and open up a pair of 0's and a pair of 1's, sending the complimentary message across sapce-time to their partners. Is this right?
If so, then what happens at the distant end? How do they know which half of THEIR particles to interrogate? Do they constantly sift them, trying to ascertain their spins, waiting to get my possible message? If so, how can they tell my message from the noise?
I assume the distant end has either two piles of particles, corresponding (oppositely) to mine, or a batch of mixed particles. In either case, how do they know the right ones to interrogate?
First, it seems that the proposal is to prep a batch of particle pairs and separate them. One half the batch goes into the rocket and is blasted 50 light years away, the other half stays with me. I now have at my end a pile of 1's and 0's, with their partners far, far away.
I set some sort of trap that sorts my particles into two piles, with all the 1's in one pile and the 0's in the other. Is this right?
Assuming it is, I want to send a message to my rocket, but I want to do it NOW. I want to send a "1-1-0-0" through entaglement radio. So, I reach into my two piles and open up a pair of 0's and a pair of 1's, sending the complimentary message across sapce-time to their partners. Is this right?
If so, then what happens at the distant end? How do they know which half of THEIR particles to interrogate? Do they constantly sift them, trying to ascertain their spins, waiting to get my possible message? If so, how can they tell my message from the noise?
I assume the distant end has either two piles of particles, corresponding (oppositely) to mine, or a batch of mixed particles. In either case, how do they know the right ones to interrogate?
BrunosStar
Unregistered
B
RichardR said:
As far as I know not yet. I believe that setting up the atomic size structures need for this to work is still beyond our technical grasp.
Bruno