Recent content by jbmolineux

Is there a connection between the inverse square law of gravity and the time-squared rate that bodies fall (i.e. (32ft/second)/second))?

This is over my head at the moment, but let me try to understand. You're saying that which of my two options (a or b) is the case depends on how you define position and momentum, right? But in the case of "well-defined non-commuting canonically conjugate position and momentum," it literally...

Atyy, I take CI to involve essentially the idea that particles do not exist in the classical sense, and therefore do not have a position and velocity simultaneously, and that therefore reality is ultimately not deterministic but probabilistic. My understanding is that it is also possible to...

Atyy, if CI is the only interpretation consistent with known observations is Copenhagen, why do only 42% of physicists in this poll (http://arxiv.org/pdf/1301.1069v1.pdf) support it? That question is not meant to be rhetorical, but actually seeking information. Is this poll not a good...

I read that post, and I find a bit of a paradox in what seems to be the consensus of the community. (1) On the one hand, it is being said that interpretations are a "psychological preference, and not science" (2) On the other hand, it is being said that newcomers/layman don't have enough...

My understanding was that the experiment was attempting to measure the velocity of a particle by measuring the recoil against a screen in addition to measuring the position, as per Einstein's original thought experiment. This footnote to the Wikipedia article on the Bohr Einstein debates is...

Theoretically, if someone were to design an experiment that could test both the position and velocity of a particle, wouldn't that have bearing on the interpretation? My understanding of Einstein's thought experiment upon which that experiment was based was that it was designed with precisely...

I was wondering if anyone could comment on this experiment: https://www.atom.uni-frankfurt.de/publications/files/Schmidt2013PRL.pdf, which supposedly experimentally realized Einstein's thought-experimental objection to Bohr at the Fifth Solvay International Conference on Electrons and Photons in...

I believe that science must rest on an a priori foundation (and is not empirical) and I wanted to use this forum to get a sense for how people might respond to these ideas. Here are the reasons I give for why science must ultimately have an a priori foundation: Mathematics is a priori. I...

Wow thanks everyone! I don't fully understand these answer, but I do get a clear sense that the answer is basically, "they nonetheless end up measuring the same photon in a way that is well-understood by SL," so there is no paradox. Thanks for taking the time!

I agree completely. The mess that exists currently in philosophy is significantly worse than that of the sciences. Moreover, as the Weinberg article suggested, it is actually RESPONSIBLE for much of the mess in the sciences--which is essentially my major thesis. There are a handful of things...

Yes, I know. That's what creates the paradox. Observer 1 - moving toward the sun at 1/2 SOL, for him the velocity of the photon stream is the SOL, and by extension, the velocity RELATIVE TO THE EARTH is 1.5 SOL Observer 2 - moving away from the sun at 1/2 SOL, for him the velocity of the...

Yes, but given that the photons are moving 1.5 SOL relative to the Earth for the first man, and .5 SOL relative to the Earth for the second man, the photons would be getting there faster for the first man...right? And so shouldn't it therefore mean that the first man would measure a photon much...

Yeah, but the "history" there is a mess!

Yes, that was my understanding as well--although I've heard it both claimed that the Bell Test experiments vindicated "non-realism" and that it was simply LOCAL realism that they violated. But that leads me to another question--why is non-local realism so hard to fathom? What's so spooky about...