Replying to Blah Jim Choate wrote...
It's called relativity because it assumes no absolute frame against which speeds must be referenced.
OK, Senior Choate, let's try to communicate here. The phrase you missed in Blah's sentence above is "absolute reference frame", and this sentence is conscise and precise enough that had we sent it back to about 1890, they probably would have been able to derive special relativity from it.Wrong.
Based on your following sentence, I would think you would agree with this. The point is that no matter how fast I am amoving (however you want to reference that), if I measure the speed of light, it's always going to be measured at 'c'. If I try to speed up relative to the light I am measuring, relative time between the two reference frames will slow just exactly so I still measure that light as c. This is precisely because the universe is a dumb thing and doesn't know when one thing is 'moving' and other thing is 'not moving' (for unaccelerated bodies of course).
This problem was exactly the motivation for Michelson-Morley and other experimental work (including Lorentz's) that tried to understand exactly what 'c' meant in Maxwell's equations.
As for unifying GENERAL relativity with QM, I just can't understand why you think that's necessary in order to understand Young's Double Slit. (Yeah, I read what you wrote, but I simply don't understand what you are saying).
Now of course your points may actually be more philosophical than physics per se, but I must unfortunately confess that those of us trained in physics (and who live there for a while) have a very hard time thinking completely outside that formalism.
-TD
From: Jim Choate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Subject: CDR: Re: QM, EPR, A/B Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 23:30:30 -0600 (CST)On Mon, 6 Jan 2003, blah wrote: > From: Jim Choate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >On Sat, 4 Jan 2003, blah wrote: > > > Not from the photons perspective, from a photons perspective there is > > -no- time. > > A photon has no "perspective". Yes it does. It is a particle and it interacts with the rest of the cosmos. The cosmos views it, it views the cosmos. > Anyone that wishes to have the short version and skip the detailed > corrections to misconceptions, they may note simply that an observer > in special relativity compares their results with other observers > through a lorentz transform. The photon -is- an observer. It observes the device, just as the device observes it. There is a 'c' and a 'v' in -any- Lorentz transform. Do the math with v=c. 'v' is -always- in relation to 'c' because 'c' is -always constant-. > There exists no lorentz transform by which any observer may transform > coordinates to a photon, Really why? > It's called relativity because it assumes no absolute frame against > which speeds must be referenced. Wrong. -ALL- speeds are measured against c. That -is- the whole point of Lorentz transforms. 'c' is -always- c. c is a -constant-. Therefore it -is absolute-. There is no -space- constant, to that I will agree. -- ____________________________________________________________________ We are all interested in the future for that is where you and I are going to spend the rest of our lives. Criswell, "Plan 9 from Outer Space" [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ssz.com www.open-forge.org --------------------------------------------------------------------
_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
