Recent content by Pelion

Thanks much Nugatory for coming up with (and devoting the time to write) this great analysis of the situation! Excellent perspective on the problem, and one that delineates the issues...let me think about what you claim.

Doctoral level physics...it is just that I do not shy away from discussing something I find interesting even though I am not an expert in the particular topic (relativistic thermodynamics). If I am mistaken in my comprehension and an expert points that out then so be it, I have gained in...

[ Skeptical because even though this may be the case--where one places the gauges results in different 'visual' perceptions of the readings, these effects do not seem to relate to the physics of what we are talking about (the actual cooling of the two plates in a relativistic setting). The...

OK, in light of the good comments so far, here is how I will try to make clear the 'peculiarity' of the scenario: (a) {I claim} The observer in the rest frame, S, of the two identical plates, A & B, will find identical time-dependent (due to cooling) temperature readings for all times. (b)...

Thanks for these references, appreciate it.

Hi Ibix... and thanks for your insightful comments so far; I will have to think more about them. OK, let's assume 'point contact' (eg mercury) temperature gauges--good that that you brought up the interesting fact that in such a scenario the nature of the measuring device is important. I do...

Relativistic thermodynamics is not introductory, the purpose of this thought experiment is to see if people can spot fallacies easily or whether the scenario is worthy of more detailed mathematical analysis.

OK, I thought it was implied that the gauges can be independent of any SR effects: the two gauges are assumed to be situated on the y-axis and have the same x location, and thus they are not subject to the SR effects of the relative motion between frames S and S’, which is along the x-axis only.

I tend to agree with what you have stated except for your claim that the temperature readings for the observer at rest with the plates in frame S isn’t an objective fact—it has to be: in S both plates are at rest with respect to each other and the observer in S and if they read the same...

Hi all, Consider the situation depicted in the illustration. Two identical 'square plates' are situated at rest, in frame S, as shown: Plate A has its thickness 'a' parallel to the x-axis and its sides 'L' parallel to the y and z axes, while plate B has its thickness parallel to the y-axis and...

...the only reason that QFT 'requires' that spacelike-separated observables commute is because this was 'built in' from the start, by fiat, as a presumed axiom...it is called 'microcausality' and is not derived from first principles. So, in this case, experiment would be the best test (provided...

Yes, good point. The issues raised: Eq.5 embodies a non-unitary transformation and relies on heuristics, thus it is not clear (at this point) if the application of the full quantum-optical description of the scenario will refute or support the import of Eq.5. Note: one reviewer did stress...

...oh, by the way, this paper went through TWO rounds of review with Pramana, because of its controversial nature...so it went through more extensive review than is typical.

...then the Indian Academy of Sciences is not esteemed in your opinion and, apparently, you have not perused the journal...if you had, you would see highly mathematical and complex works, replete with articles in topics like supersymmetry and quantum chromodynamics. How great for a senior member...

Hi to all, A proposal of mine, that purports to enable faster-than-light communication, has been accepted (a few months ago) by an esteemed peer-reviewed physics journal: Pramana, Indian Academy of Sciences. The article will appear in January. The PDF of the accepted version is attached...