Re: Discarding Relativity: the twin paradox and Schrodinger's cat

On 26 feb, 18:56, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 26, 12:09 pm, Albertito <albertito1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On 26 feb, 17:03, "Paul B. Andersen"

<paul.b.ander...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Albertito wrote:
On 26 feb, 14:44, "Androcles" <Headmas...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Albertito" <albertito1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:c9d9cb79-fe7f-4c8d-adbd-619368476871@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| I'm going to prove that when the travelling twin B returns
| close to twin A at rest, he is younger than A, and A is
| younger than B, too. It is saying the twin paradox and
| Schrodinger's cat are actually the same phenomenon!.
|
| Special Relativty is just a naive theory trying to describe a
| quantum phenomenon known as quantum superposition.
| Quantum kinematics is the correct framework for accounting
| for the so-called relativistic motions.
|
| The fact that moving B's clock would run slower than A's
| clock at rest, is a typical case of quantum superposition,
| because there is a symmetry telling us that, in proper B's
| frame, it is moving A's clock that runs slower. For systems
| which interact continuously with their environments, quantum
| decoherence resolves the superposition of states providing
| a mechanism for wave function collapses to take place.
|
Where's the proof?

The proof is as follows:
Consider two clocks, A and B, synchronized at rest,
Now, keep them isolated from environment, say in two
sealed boxes, where we can't observe them running.
Now, move one box in inertial motion wrt the other, at
speed v>0. According to SR, A clock is now running
faster than B clock, in proper A's frame, but B clock is
also running faster than A clock in proper B's frame.
If both clocks have remained isolated, preserved from
any eventual perturbation. then when you approach
both boxes to be at rest close together, there wouldn't
be a twin paradox, but a Schrodinger's cat paradox.
A clock would show a time t_a, and B clock a time
t_b, such that t_a< t_b and t_b< t_a, but t_a < > t_b.
A clock marks two different times simultaneously, and
B clock, too.
Isn't that phenomenon a quantum superposition of states?.
When you open one of those sealed boxes, a quantum
decoherence is produced, so you can observe one of
those clocks shows a unique time, and instantaneously
the time on the other clock is fixed as unique too.

Most cranks reinvent the same 'proof that SR is wrong"
over and over.
But you have invented a brand new approach, so idiotic
that no other crank has thought of it.
Congratulations!

If it is a joke, I went right into it. :-)
It was superb.

--
Paul

http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/

Of course it is a joke. What is science but a joke?
Most interesting approaches (theories/hypothesis)
that actually work started being crank ideas, jokes,
gedankenexperiments, games. Do you agree? :-)

As a follow-up, this is the BIG misconception of the hobbyist and the
hopeful amateur. The mistake is thinking that the *most important*
part of the work is the concept, the inspiration, the crazy idea, the
thought experiments, the elementary application of logic and common
sense. There is the HUGELY unfortunate misperception that this is what
Einstein did that made him famous. It is also unfortunately abetted by
the vast number of coffee-table books and Discovery Magazine articles
that try to make the basic ideas accessible to the casual reader while
completely glossing over the real work that was done, and in the
process giving the mistaken impression that that's all there is to it.

This error has led to two responses, which is directly responsible to
90% of the traffic on sci.physics and sci.physics.relativity.

1) "Heck, I can do that." This produces quarter-baked "theories" and
word-salad appeals that are aimed by the hobbyist to mimic *in
appearance* what they think was done, on the basis of what they've
seen in coffee-table books and magazine articles. That is, they try to
reproduce something that is at the same depth as the coffee-table book
and magazine articles, and they hope that doing that is the really
essential part. "Otherwise," they rationalize, "if the in-depth stuff
was really important, they would have covered it in the
popularizations."

2) "Well then, he's famous for no good reason." This produces
invective and slanderous aspersions to Einstein's character,
attribution of the work to other people, accusations of cover-up and
wholly invented worship of an arbitrarily selected icon. This
perception falsely raises the hope of the hobbyist to think, "Heck, if
he can get famous for doing very little except use his noggin, then I
can get famous for doing very little except using my noggin."

Keep in mind that both of these reactions are based on superficial
exposure and very limited understanding of the real work, both
theoretical and experimental. It is also very common. It is also an
error that needs to be corrected. It is worth it to the *hobbyist*
that it be corrected.

A similar account is here:http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Gems/WhatItTakes.html.
I'll remark that a number of people reacted to that post with "How
*dare* you shut down the dreams of the amateur!" There is a fine and
important distinction between a reality check and a shut-down.

PD

Gee, your verbal diarrhoea "word salad" is worst than mine :-)
I would include a third kind of responses which do almost
the 80% of the noise,
3) "The passive cleaners", Those who never start a thread,
and their only task is replying restlessly, with the 'sane'
intention
of preserving the Holy Established Truth.

.

Relevant Pages