On Tue, Oct 15, 2024 at 8:49 AM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> 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 <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>* > *> 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 * > > > > *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 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/78c432ef-e2d1-4328-9a95-3d53eb249408n%40googlegroups.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/78c432ef-e2d1-4328-9a95-3d53eb249408n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- 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/CAJPayv3Qr0%2BaKsM6GyM8TcjFLE6Sg%2BH25b4mmm%3DnzzP%3Do8T-aQ%40mail.gmail.com.
