Re: The start of the big bang must be frame dependent.

From: init 3 (init3_at_init3.init3)
Date: 07/06/04 

Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2004 07:17:52 GMT

Jeff Relf wrote:
 
> Likewise, professor Davies' theory is
> an even finer tweak,
> i.e. for objects that are even more massive,
> compared to humans,
> such as at the very start of the big bang.
> ( Which start is relative to us humans, of course )

Sorry, Jeff, but real science is biting your tailfeathers.

What you have referred to is called the 'Weirdness Barrier':

http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/quantum/quantum.jsp?id=23390700

But Schwab hopes to resolve the issue quickly. With Andrew Armour, now at
the University of Nottingham, and Miles Blencowe at Dartmouth College in
Hanover, New Hampshire, he has built a silicon beam whose length is just a
fortieth of the width of a hair. This is small by our standards, but vast
compared with a buckyball. Next to the beam is a strip of aluminium called
a Cooper pair box attached by insulating contacts to an aluminium loop (see
Graphic).

> That's relativistic mass, which is not at all Newtonian.

I was speaking metaphorically. Einstein's thought experiments were all
about trains and elevators. Highly Newtonian. Einstein basically added
some fixes here and there and a paint job and that let Newton go for
another century. But the free ride is over, baby.

> And, contrary to what many idiots think,
> Einstein was the main founder of quantum physics...
> hardly an antagonist.

Chuckle, chuckle. Jeff, stop reading Physics for Idiots and get an
education. Einstein /reluctantly/ added to quantum physics, all the while
looking for that myterious Grand Unified Theory to help make things all
nice and neat again, so people could get a good night's rest. Sorry,
Charlie, only the best theories get to be quantum.

> What confuses the peanut gallery is that Einstein
> ( like most cosmologists then and now )
> simply believed that randomness was
> nothing more than a lack of information.

Here's something really interesting. It relates quantum entanglement to
*entropy* -- and it works !!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement

Given a general density matrix ρ, we can calculate the quantity where k is
Boltzmann's constant, and the trace is taken over the space H in which ρ
acts. It turns out that S is precisely the entropy of the system
corresponding to H.

The entropy of any pure state is zero, which is unsurprising since there is
no uncertainty about the state of the system. The entropy of any of the two
subsystems of the entangled state discussed above is kln 2 (which can be
shown to be the maximum entropy for a one-level system). If the overall
system is pure, the entropy of its subsystems can be used to measure its
degree of entanglement with the other subsystems.

It can also be shown that unitary operators acting on a state (such as the
time evolution operator obtained from the Schrödinger equation) leave the
entropy unchanged. This associates the reversibility of a process with its
resulting entropy change, which is a deep result linking quantum mechanics
to information theory and thermodynamics.

> You concluded,
> " Now the *** has hit the fans
> and we're right around the corner from teleportation.
>
> The /spooky/ question is: What was Einstein scared of ? "

Einstein and Newton are *not* something to be added to. The very foundation
of Newton -- the discrete calculus -- is something I called into question
in my Junior Year high school physics class. I asked, how can you measure
the /instantaneous/ speed of anything when it assumes that time is gone to
zero. The answer: a deafening silence !

Quantum is an /all/ encompassing theory -- and it was only understood, prior
to 1900, by mystics, not physicists.

>
> Things like quantum tunneling are
> only about incomplete information...
> information that is missing due to speed,
> tininess, remoteness, etc.
>
> And as such, they do not relate to our reality, as humans.

Once again. you should read something written after 1989 when it comes to
physics. Then feel free to participate.

Here's something for you to read about in the meantime:

http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/quantum/quantum.jsp?id=ns99991888

Teleporting larger objects becomes real possibility

The dream of teleporting atoms and molecules - and maybe even larger objects
- has become a real possibility for the first time. The advance is thanks
to physicists who have suggested a method that in theory could be used to
"entangle" absolutely any kind of particle.

Quantum entanglement is the bizarre property that allows two particles to
behave as one, no matter how far apart they are. If you measure the state
of one particle, you instantly determine the state of the other. This could
one day allow us to teleport objects by transferring their properties
instantly from one place to another.

Until now, physicists have only been able to entangle photons, electrons and
atoms, using different methods in each case. For instance, atoms are
entangled by forcing them to interact inside an optical trap, while photons
are made to interact with a crystal.

"These schemes are very specific," says Sougato Bose of the University of
Oxford. But Bose and Dipankar Home, of the Bose Institute in Calcutta, have
now demonstrated a single mechanism that could be used to entangle any
particles, even atoms or large molecules. 

-- 
w 4