- #211
Farsight
- 453
- 0
Er, no thanks.
setAI: can you post another link that demonstrates why MWI sounds likely or plausible?
setAI: can you post another link that demonstrates why MWI sounds likely or plausible?
|x> ------*------ |x>
|
/--+--\
|y> ---|C-NOT|--- |x+y>
\-----/
|x> ------*------ |x>
|
/--+--\
|0> ---|C-NOT|--- |x>
\-----/
|x> ------*---------*------ |x>
| |
/--+--\ |
|0> ---|C-NOT|------------- |x>
\-----/ |
/--+--\
|0> -------------|C-NOT|--- |x>
\-----/
Farsight said:Hurkyl:
I made a post on the "Electron Energy" thread and it's disappeared. It was nothing contentious, just a link to something I found when looking up infinite energy. This sort of thing has happened a few times. Is there some kind of priesthood god damn thought-police on this forum expunging any concepts that challenge dogma? And is this Physics, or the Catholic Church circa 1450?
Sorry I haven't replied earlier I don't get much chance to spend time on the forum.ttn said:There is only one argument showing this, and it is the same argument showing that something *inside* the future light cone of an event can't causally affect the event. The argument is: there is no such thing as backwards-in-time causation.
You are correct I did make up the expression “Lorentz super-positioning", originally I called this idea “proper interval locality”, however I thought the word super-positioning might appeal more to specialist in quantum mechanics. I’m willing to accept it’s a “crazy phrase” and can cause confusion with the super-positioning of quantum states. Thanks for the advice.ttn said:"Lorentz super-positioning" is a crazy phrase you seem to have made up. I have no idea what it means, and I assume others don't either. Indeed, based on what you seem to think this phrase means, I question whether you know what (normal, quantum-mechanical) super-positioning means -- i.e., whether you know any quantum physics in the first place.
Hans de Vries said:You are mixing up two very different thing:
1) Being on the light cone (s=0) [itex]\sqrt{c^2t^2-x^2-y^2-z^2}[/itex]
2) Separation in space time = [itex]\sqrt{c^2t^2+x^2+y^2+z^2}[/itex]
Hans de Vries said:Following your reasoning ANY two points in the universe would have a
space-time separation of zero! Each pair of space-time points A and B
has many points C which are on the light cone of both A and B, that
is: AC = 0 and BC = 0 and thus AB = 0+0 = 0.
Most certainly. If UglyDuckling wishes to discuss his personal "Proper Interval Locality" theory, he should submit it to the Independent Research Forum, subject to the applicable guidelines, found https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=82301.Farsight said:Or, and utmost apologies, are we straying into "crank" territory here?
Farsight said:UglyDuckling: this sounds interesting. Are you basically saying: a photon travels at the "speed of light" so no time passes for a photon. Therefore it "instantly" connects A and C such that trying to locate it somewhere between A and C means you locate it at B, and it therefore connected A and B? So trying to locate it is like trying to locate a rod somewhere along its length? Is a rod the right analagy? Or should I try to think about a property with no length? Like, is determining the position of a photon as much use as trying to measure the length of a gallon?
Farsight said:Or, and utmost apologies, are we straying into "crank" territory here?
Anybody?
Doc Al said:Most certainly. If UglyDuckling wishes to discuss his personal "Proper Interval Locality" theory, he should submit it to the Independent Research Forum, subject to the applicable guidelines, found https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=82301.
UglyDuckling said:What is it in the nature of space-time that’s enables spatially remote particles to become entangled and how one part of the entangled pair knows to 'collapse' when the other part is measured?
UD