LAUGHED OUT OF COURT

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>I let them dig their own hole along the argument they made that "It is impossible to stop all clocks in real time at the same time"<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I am no fan of special relativity (SR), and my co-authored paper last summer in Foundations of Physics purports to falsify SR in favor of Lorentzian relativity (LR). However, if we are going to discuss SR, then you must accept the premises of SR for purposes of the discussion, even if you don't like or believe them.

One of those premises is the invariance of the speed of light, and the other is Lorentz invariance (basically, the laws of physics will be the same from any inertial frame). Combined, these two premises guaranty that <i>there is no such thing as "at the same time"</i> for remote clocks. In SR, time everywhere becomes frame-dependent, and if you and I are in different frames that coincide for a moment, and estimate the time now in Tokyo, we will get different answers and <b>both be correct</b>. Moreover, in my opinion, your clocks run slow; whereas in your opinion, mine run slow; and we are both correct about that too.

None of these things can be checked by experiment. They are either premises, or flow directly from the premises. It has been shown repeatedly they lead to no contradictions, but often lead to paradoxes because they do violence to our intuitive notion of time.

The most common mistake made in analyzing SR problems is to assume a "universal instant of now", which does not in fact exist in SR. So in SR, you can't possibly stop several separated clocks in different frames "at the same time" because there is no such thing as "at the same time". Each frame will have a different and conflicting opinion about what time it is in any other frame.

By quickly changing frames, you can easily create the situation that time for a distant location suddenly jumps to the future or the past. Your intuition rebels, but that is the theory. It causes no contradictions because the places now in the future or past are outside your light cone (i.e., you can't see them now, but only after the light arrives, by which the time difference between clocks has vanished).

So if you are talking SR only, the critics are right. It is only amusing to you because you are not prepared to accept the premises of SR and their corollaries even for the sake of discussing SR. -|Tom|-

Tom,

You are right of course but that wasn't the pun. I used Relativity to stipulate the proper stopping of the clocks. That makes the assumption that Relativity is valid. Doing so then shows Relativity is invalid.

It was just funny to watch them squirm and scream.

Thanks for your feedback.

Tom,

I just received an e-mail from a well wisher. I was aware of this field but did not think of it as a solution. How does that fit the implication of "Invalidating" Relativity.


******************
Quantum Entanglement
Just wanted you to see this link:

physicsweb.org/article/news/7/2/6

What it means is that it may be possible to send signals between the three clocks in the "three clock paradox" instantaneously using quantum entanglement. This invalidates chroot's arguement that the experiment can't physically be performed
****************

Mac

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>How does that fit the implication of "Invalidating" Relativity.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Quantum entanglement does not permit useful information to be transmitted ftl, so it cannot be used to test relativity. -|Tom|-

Tom,

Let me ask this. I understand we don't have a good handle on particle entanglement. How can you be sure that information couldn't be transmitted by that means.

In otherwords we know that in a particle pair that if you change the state of one particle the other changes state in t=0 (or immeasurable
amount of time).

Suppose you design clocks that can be switched on and off by the state of particle pairs distributed in the clocks. They become like 0/1 binary codes.

Do you have anything that suggest that can't be done. Other than it hasn't yet been done? The reason I ask is that I have seen articles that suggest it may lead to some very useful computer particularily for future space missions.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>How can you be sure that information couldn't be transmitted by [entanglement].<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Because we cannot control the state of the particles, but can only discover what they are.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>In otherwords we know that in a particle pair that if you change the state of one particle the other changes state in t=0 (or immeasurable amount of time).<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

The state of a particle allegedly does not exist until it is observed. At that point, we can discover it, which in turn determines what the state of its distant counterpart is too. But we cannot set the distant one by setting the local one. We do not have that type of control.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Suppose you design clocks that can be switched on and off by the state of particle pairs distributed in the clocks. They become like 0/1 binary codes.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Obviously so. But that is not possible by any known means in today's physics.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Do you have anything that suggest that can't be done. Other than it hasn't yet been done? The reason I ask is that I have seen articles that suggest it may lead to some very useful computer particularily for future space missions.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Personally, I support Einstein's "hidden variables" viewpoint, and the interpretation of QM phenomena I describe in chapter 5 of <i>Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets</i>. Maybe gravitons are one of the hidden variables. If so, then FTL communications will soon be possible. But for now, FTL is not possible. And many physicists believe it never will be. -|Tom|-