OT: Christian relativity - in which I manglephilosophyof science

Iorwerth Thomas · 27 Apr 2006, 09:12 · from 2006-April.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: iorweththomas at hotmail.com (Iorwerth Thomas)
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 10:12:01 +0100
Subject: (urth) OT: Christian relativity - in which I manglephilosophyof
	science
In-Reply-To: <1f7617370604261059g612c8b0fs6fdf781911f6bef1 at mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BAY114-F16EFC0A56BD40367150206B9BD0 at phx.gbl>




>From: "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes" <danldo at gmail.com>
>Heh. Back in my days at Berkeley, one of their Nobel winners in
>Physics insisted on sitting on all doctoral defenses. He would
>inevitably ask "What is the definition of force?" and similar
>questions -- if you couldn't come up with F=MA, you were hosed.
>Some of the candidates, who hadn't touched "that stuff" in ten
>years or more, had to cram before their oral
>

Ouch...

>Okay I didn't know that there was a canonical version of quantum
>gravity yet... I clearly need to catch up on my science mags. (There's
>a huge pile by the bed...)
>

Canonical quantum gravity is just the term for what Stephen Hawking does 
(i.e. take GR and second quantise it); it isn't hugely successful...

> > The degree to which Bell's inequalities affect relativistic causality is
> > somewhat up in the air, because you can't transmit information
> > faster than light,
>
>Ummm ... I have this idea that you can, by exploiting exclusion.
>
>Consider three points, A, B, and C. B is between A and C,
>but one light-microsecond closer to A. B emits photon-pairs
>towards both A and C, at regular intervals.
>
>At C, you set up a device to detect photons coming from B as
>waves.
>
>At A, I measure every other (odd-numbered) photon as a particle. If
>I'm understanding exclusion and the inequality correctly, this means
>that you can't measure these photons as waves, so your wave-
>measuring doodad misses every odd-numbered photon, which gives
>us a kind of synchronization. Then I measure the even-numbered
>photons as waves for 1 and as particles for 0. You will only be able
>to detect the ones paired to the ones I measure as waves. So no
>matter how far A and C are from each other, the information I
>encode in this way will reach you in one microsecond.
>
>True? False? I'm not sure -- I don't have the maths to understand
>why I'm wrong, if I am.
>

I'll have to think about that...  I suspect that it may be an ill posed 
problem :) (that is, there's a catch, but I'm buggered if I know what it 
is).

> > >I'm pretty sure that the whole point of relativity is _not_ to have
> > >a preferred frame of reference. But, ZPF theory may mess that
> > >up pretty good (if it ever amounts to anything).
> > >
> >
> > Well, yes...  But in the case of the universe you get a
> > Machian 'background of fixed stars' effect (I think); I'm not sure
> > Lee Smolin is happy with that but he's a bit of a purist in this regard.
>
>Mmmm. I see the point while not conceding it -- if I move an
>inch, my position relative to the farthest actual star _has_
>changed, even if the change is below any conceivable threshold
>of measurement. I don't think this creates an actual preferred
>frame of reference, but a difference of scales in which certain
>effects become smaller than quanta and effectively disappear.

I think it's a little more fundamental than that (and my refernce to Mach 
may be slightly misleading).  Maybe it's a property of the particular 
space-time metric cosmologists use?

> > ZPF theory?
>
>Zero point field theory, which (aside from offering a nifty source
>of hypothetical free energy, at least in science fiction) seems
>to propose an actual reason why inertial mass is related to
>gravitational mass.
>

Ah yes, I think I've heard of that (vaguely), though I don't know much about 
it; most of my particle physicist watching at the moment constists of 
observing the general kerfuffle as string theory dies a messy death for the 
_third_ time...

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net