Re: Spooky Action At a Distance Question
From: Nicolaas Vroom (nicolaas.vroom_at_pandora.be)
Date: 07/02/04
- Next message: Yi-Zen Chu; Yiren Qu: "Chemical Potential Question"
- Previous message: Dirk Bruere at Neopax: "Re: High Temeprature Thermal insulation"
- Maybe in reply to: Nicolaas Vroom: "Re: Spooky Action At a Distance Question"
- Next in thread: Peter Shor: "Re: Spooky Action At a Distance Question"
- Reply: Peter Shor: "Re: Spooky Action At a Distance Question"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 2 Jul 2004 13:54:09 -0400
"David Park" <djmp@earthlink.net> schreef in bericht
news:oYXBc.9823$bs4.1308@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> I'm also a novice also trying to learn these things.
>
> On the question of rigidity in special relativity Taylor and Wheeler have
a
> wonderful exercise (L-12, p 116, paradox of the skateboard and the grid)
in
> their Spacetime Physics text. A meter stick slides across a floor with a
one
> meter diameter hole. If the meter stick is moving at a high speed it will
> appear shortened in the frame of the hole and fall through. But from the
> perspective of the meter stick, it is the hole that is shortened and so
one
> might expect it not to fall through. But it does because 'rigidity' is not
> an invariant concept. The meter stick 'droops' and slips right through the
> hole.
Is this the outcome of a real experiment ?
If No than this whole discussion has no "value" i.e.
does not make sense
If Yes what has rigidity to do with this experiment because
why considering the meter stick (rod) rigid
when in reality a rod is not rigid ?
If the meter stick drops through the hole as the result of an experiment
(In reality there should be a small bar at the middle of the hole, other
wise
a rod which is almost twice as large as the hole with a small speed
moving left to right over the hole will drop through the hole)
then there are two points of view,
one from the frame of hole (and fall through)
and one from meter stick (and not fall through).
If the meter stick drops through the hole as the result of an experiment
than the second point of view is just wrong.
and not "because 'rigidity' is not an invariant concept"
> On the question of QM 'spooky action at a distance', which really isn't
> involved in the question, I would like to suggest an image for popular
> visualization. I'm not certain how good it is - but here it is. In
painting
> there is a style called the 'pointillist' style pioneered by Georges
Seurat.
> Images are built up from a large number of points of various shades and
> colors. These blend to give the overall image. If one looked at a very
small
> piece of a painting the points would appear to be random. Spooky action
> at a distance, say by careful measurement on an entangled painting at a
> distance, would change the random collection of dots.
> But overall the painting would look quite the same to the viewer
> and he could never tell, even by examining the dots closely,
> what particular actions had been taken on the distant painting.
What has spooky action at a distance (if it exists) and entanglement
to do with the paintings of for example Rembrandt and van Gogh ?
IMO nothing.
Nicolaas Vroom
http://users.pandora.be/nicvroom/
- Next message: Yi-Zen Chu; Yiren Qu: "Chemical Potential Question"
- Previous message: Dirk Bruere at Neopax: "Re: High Temeprature Thermal insulation"
- Maybe in reply to: Nicolaas Vroom: "Re: Spooky Action At a Distance Question"
- Next in thread: Peter Shor: "Re: Spooky Action At a Distance Question"
- Reply: Peter Shor: "Re: Spooky Action At a Distance Question"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
