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 <[email protected]> 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? AG**s* *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 -- 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 [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/3da1e52d-204a-46ff-95ed-edd465e74888n%40googlegroups.com.
