Re: Nonlocality, QM weirdness.

From: Dr. Photon (brendan.roycroft_at_nmrc.ie)
Date: 03/03/05 

Date: 3 Mar 2005 06:42:55 -0800

"Lefty" <Ye@h.Right> wrote in message news:<-sSdnXdf-K2i5bvfRVn-gA@comcast.com>...
> > > I will summarize the philosophy which I have constructed thus far so
> that
> > > the reader can get a better idea of the logic behind this, and so that
> an
> > > algebraic model might eventually emerge from all of this babble.
> > >
> > >
> > > You cannot build a clock out of the whole universe. Relative to an
> observer,
> > > it is so large that it simply does not tick.
> >
> > Where is this observer? Outside the universe? Or do you mean somehow a
> > "very large observer" (whatever that might mean...)? Or is it a small
> > observer trying to observe the whole universe at once? Or what?
>
> Thanks for the feedback - I'm really just brainstorming out loud and hope it
> makes sense.
>
> Initially, I am thinking that the observer would be the approximate scale of
> a human being, but this is not really very amenable to algebraic modelling.
> I think that it would be easier to designate a reference wave as being a
> comfortable wave to observe, and judge the universe against that wave.
>
> Lets imagine a wave which would be very easy for a human being to study.
> Say, for example, a wavelength of 1 meter and a frequency of 1 hz. You could
> designate this as your reference wave, and judge all other waves in the
> universe against it.

what are you judging? This implies a measurement of some sort, so I'll
presume you would measure the relative amplitude, phase, velocity and
frequency.

>
> Just one possibility, but it seems like this would facilitate an interesting
> model. Very adaptable to algebra.
>
>
> > > It is practically motionless
> > > relative to an observer. You could also try to imagine the largest
> possible
> > > wave,
> >
> > Do you mean an em wave? I'll take it that you do.
>
>
> Well, everything in the universe can be viewed in terms of waves. The solar
> system - planetary orbits, these are waves - big ones. Of course you have
> EM, sound, etc, all kinds of waves. Some are big, and others are small. Some
> are extremely big, galactic scale, and I think that there is a limit to how
> big it can be.
>
> I think that this may be the only way to get a mathematical handle on
> relative scales.
>
>
> > > such that the wavelength is approximately the diameter of the
> > > universe, the frequency of this wave would be many millions of years.

I take it you mean period

> This
> > > wave may be considered so huge that it is practically motionless
> relative to
> > > an observer.
> >
> > So is this observer inside the universe? If you imply that light of a
> > long wavelength travels slowly past an observer, then obviously it
> > doesn't.

Do you accept my point on the velocity here?

> > If you imply that the E-field displacement of a low frequency
> > wave varies slowly, then ok.
> >
> > > This wave has a wavelength and frequency which are strictlty
> > > less than infininity - and this dispenses with Zeno's paradox.
> >
> > Don't see how Zeno's paradox applies in any case.
>
> Imagine that the universe is infinitely large. If there is some infinitely
> large wave "W" in this universe, then the ratio cycles of any given wave
> compared to W becomes 1/infinity, or 1/0, or whatever you please. This is
> really a problem.
>
> If the universe were infinitely large, then Zeno's paradox might become an
> issue in this argument. But I'm postulating that there is some scale which
> is less than infinity where huge waves simply become impossible to observe
> because they are so huge, they become practically motionless relative to an
> observer.

there is a difference between "impossible to observe" and "practically
motionless". Relative to my lifetime, the period of galactic rotation
is pretty useless as a clock. So as a "for instance" you seem to be
saying that something which changes on a time scale much longer than
the current age of the universe looks almost static over the age of
the universe. Can't argue with that, but I don't see much use in it
yet. Variations in the values of fundamental "constants" might come
under this heading.

>
> I have no idea how to determine what that scale is at this point - and might
> need to borrow from Planck.
>
>
> > > If the universe were infinitelty large, then you would have divsion by
> zero
> > > in nature. Something must break down before that.
> >
> > You seem to imply that the universe cannot have a constant electric
> > field background. Which is probably fair enough, as the presence of
> > one would imply that + and - electric charges would tend to separate,
> > just from free space. I guess this would have been noticed by now!
> > However, I don't see how an infinitely large universe is the reason
> > why this doesn't happen.
>
> I am casually familiar with some of the ideas which attempt to explain
> gravity in terms of fields and things like that.
>
> I dont see why a constant electric field background would not exist. The
> accepted model uses 4 fundamental forces describe energy. I dont argue with
> that view. But, my view is different. I consider only dimension and waves. I
> think that the whole universe can be built up from this.

Waves of what?

> Considering the
> possibility that continuity is a relativistic phenomenon, it appears that
> something like "constant electric field background" is almost guranteed to
> exist. - eluding to unseen structure on quantum scale.

How do you get that?

>
>
> > > I am postulating something
> > > similar to a Planck Length on an astronomical scale.
> > >
> > > Based on the the above, on some vast scale time becomes unmeasurable. It
> > > becomes unobservable. Hence, it ceases to exist relative to an observer.
> > >
> >
> > If you are saying that very low frequency em waves oscillate slowly,
> > then ok, but time is not necessarily dependent on this. For example,
> > in muon decay I don't see how em oscillations determine the time to
> > decay. Particles seem to be point particles, so what exactly is *at*
> > this large scale of yours? You say "the universe", but what is that as
> > a single object which has it's own time?
>
>
> Well - consider the recently discovered superstructures which have been
> observed in the larger universe. The presence of these structures implies a
> genesis of some kind, which could be modelled as a wave - even if it is only
> a single impulse. This wave is so huge that you simply cannot build a clock
> out of this physical process (superstructure genesis). If you tried to do
> so, you would find that time is unobservable - and therefore it ceases to
> exist on that scale relative to you.

but "you" are made of particles that all interact at various rates,
and do not depend on your above definition of time. I'm not sure how
to interpret a disembodied observer, or how to associate one with a
superstructure. What the above implies to me is that very very long
timescale processes are no good for making clocks out of if you want
to live from day to day. They may appear constant during my lifetime,
but if I was to live forever (come on you biologists, solve this will
you), then I would surely see the difference. Even if I don't get to
live forever, I could leave a photograph for future generations to
compare with whatever they see. So if something *does* change with
time then it is observable as such.

>
> Time ceases to exist relative to an observer, because time has become
> unobservable.

Only if you die before you notice the change. If the change doesn't
happen before the *universe* dies, *then* it becomes unobservable. So
you want something that doesn't change over the lifetime of the
universe to be your unobservable clock. And if the universe expands
forever, what could that be?

> We are unable to measure it on that scale, and so it does not
> exist - relative to observer. Observing and measuring time is unique in
> science. If I fail to observe a giant squid, it dose'nt mean that the squid
> does'nt exist. But if I cannot measure time - it is simply not present.
>

Something that is constant over the lifetime of the universe would
indeed not be observed to change. Do you have anything in mind?

>
> > > It also follows that the same must hold true for some very small scale.
> >
> > How does it follow???
>
> Point well taken - but Planck time seems to support this. Baiscally - that
> statement was untuitive based on the rest of it, but the same argument could
> be made.
>
>
> > > This
> > > idea seems to be supported to some extent by Planck Length and Planck
> Time.
> > >
> > > If time ceases to exist (relative to observer), then the 4th dimension
> must
> > > lose the dimension of time. Somehow it becomes a 3 dimensional entity
> > > (relative to observer).
> > >
> >
> > This is where you really lose me. Firstly, what is "it"??? Secondly,
> > if you take the universe as 4D, time is one dimension, if you lose
> > that (somehow) you are left with three spatial dimensions. My first
> > guess would have been that the 3 dimensions are frozen at one instant.
> > But you are trying to collapse the entire past and future into the
> > same 3D space? What is that supposed to mean?
>
>
> Well, I'm trying to understand spacetime. I think Minkowski was right - it
> is 4dimensional. So, "it" is the 4th dimension.
>
> Must remember that the transition from 4D to 3D is relative to observer. The
> whole thing is really 4D - but an observer will see the transition to 3D on
> huge scales, and very small scales.

In relativity, one *spatial* dimension can get flattened, but your own
time keeps going. The "oh-my-god" particle calculation was good for
pointing that out, see
http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/ohmygodpart.html

However, if I use the galactic rotation as a clock (for example), what
difference do I see? Ok, lets try it - I'm using galactic rotation
*now!*. Sorry, everything looks the same to me.

> It is almost as if there were some type
> of lens.
>
> This eliminates any weird paradoxes of compressing history or other nutty
> stuff like time travel - etc.
>
> I know it sounds very crazy, but it seems to explain nonlocality very
> cleanly !

Still don't get it.

> I am astounded to even think it possible. Time does not exist in
> 3D - and therefore we observe instantaneous things, faster than light, etc.
> It is the only reasonable explanation of the instantaneous. Blows my mind -
> and I cant believe that Einstein et al did'nt at least mull it over.
>
>
> > > Using these considerations, the fabric of spacetime seems to be a
> strange
> > > collection of points. It appears that it must be a composite of
> 3dimensional
> > > and 4dimensional "points".
> >
> > I don't get what you mean by 3D *and* 4D points. AFAIK, if you take
> > any set of 3D points, these are simply a subset of the 4D points. But
> > you seem to be trying to make a whole new set of 3D points entirely
> > separate from the 4D points???
>
>
> This is an excellent question. Consider a disk in R2. Certainly this disk is
> 2 dimensional. Now consider this same disk in R3. Is it 2 dimensional ? Is
> it 3 dimensional ? This is a matter of mathematical opinion.
>
> Yes - the 3D points are only 3D because of a relativistic effect.

so it depends on velocity rather than size?

> Essentially - you could consider this to be a relativistic illusion. But, to
> an observer - those points are definately 3D. They will have all the
> properties of a 3D point (relative to an observer).
>

in relativity, if your time dilation factor was so large that only a
microsecond passed between now and the end of the universe, you would
still see a very thin 4D universe. How light "sees" the universe, I'm
not sure, but how we see light is an easier question! One thing with
the EPR and eraser measurements is that the light source can be
pulsed, so is either "present" or "not present" at the various
components in the setup at any particular time. In particular light at
one detector will be separated from light at the other detector. If
you get rid of time, then a photon can get to *one* detector
"instantly", but how does it get to both and back again?

> The 4D points are the normal Minkowski spacetime.
>
> These points must be mixed up into some type of manifold. There must be
> infinitely many of each type, all jammed together, and it creates
> opportunities for mathematical analysis which I have never seen before. I
> dont know if analysis has ever treated this type of manifold before. I'm not
> sure - and I dont think it's ever been done !
>
> Consider using the Bolzano-Weierstrass thoerem on a manifold which is partly
> 3D and partly 4D, all mixed up together. It is CRAZY. I dont think much has
> been done in this area - if anything at all.
>
>
> > > Somehow, this must have an effect on the nature
> > > of continuity of spacetime, and the cardinality of points and sets.
> > > Continuity and the rules governing sets in spacetime must be linked
> somehow
> > > to this relativism.
> > >
> > > This philosophy seems to agree with Planck,
> >
> > Eh?
> >
> > > and also seems to explain
> > > nonlocality. In fact, it seems to explain "faster than light"
> observations
> > > very well, because time does not exist in the 3rd dimension and
> therefore
> > > everything which occurs in 3D must be instantaneous.
> >
> > Nothing occurs at all, if you don't have time to occur in.
>
> Or - it does occur because it is really 4D. Yet to an observer who is seeing
> the 3rd dimension, it will be instantaneous because time does not exist in
> 3D.

I presume you refer to light itself here?

>
>
> > And how are you relating this 3D thing to our current understanding of
> > 3D? ie up-down/left-right/backwards-forwards??? Are you implying that
> > if an experiment is laid out in "2D" on a lab bench, that light
> > travels instantaneously up to the ceiling, and this solves the EPR
> > problem???
>
>
> We experience a 4D Minkowski spacetime. Yet, relative to an observer such as
> you and I, there exists a 3rd dimension. It may be a relativistic effect, or
> even an illusion, but it will appear exactly as the 3rd dimension.

This doesn't really help me. How can up-down appear as a relativistic
illusion? (I'm being slightly obtuse here in an effort to get you to
define things better).

>
> The 2D experiment on lab bench is not really 2D in Minkowski spacetime. We
> exist in the 4th dimension. Everything is 4dimensional, but there is a 3D
> "subspace".
>
>
> > > It also agrees with
> > > Einstein because the "faster than light" observations are strictly
> > > relativistic illusions according to this philosophy.
> > > Is there an equivalent of nonlocality on the astronomical scale ?
> > >
> > > Also, the universe seems to be simultaneously open and closed on both
> the
> > > very largest and smallest scales.
> > >
> >
> > What is that supposed to mean?
>
>
> If time ceases to exist relative to an observer, then this seems to create a
> wall of some kind. A closure. Yet, the breakdown of time is merely a
> relativistic effect

so you are relating it to velocity rather than size? Or are you using
a non-technical meaning of "relativistic"?

> and so in reality this closure does not exist in
> absolute terms. The universe is therefore closed relative to an observer,
> and yet it is really open. It is open and closed ! Certainly sounds insane -
> but reasonable within the context of this development.
>

still don't get it, apart from your use of open and closed doesn't
seem related to thermodynamics.

> This must occur on both scales - astronomical, and quantum.
>
>
>
> > > There is more, but these are the most interesting things thus far. The
> > > problem is now stated and should be half solved. We need a mathematical
> > > framework to describe these ideas.
> > >
> > > ===================
> > [snip]
> > >
> > > Stop laughing. It's not funny.
> >
> > I think you have a lot of defining left to do, before I know anything
> > about what you are trying to say.
> >
> > BR
>
>
> There are some weak points - but I think that we may have a handle on
> nonlocality. There is no other sensible explanation of how things could
> occur instantaneously as in the double eraser experiment. I think that
> entaglement is an mechanism which works, but still there is no explanation
> why. I think that it is a weaker explanation than a 3D where time is simply
> not defined.

and yet the path of the photon can be followed down the paths of the
experiment (use a pulsed source and measure times of arrival on a
detector at different positions along the path). And I still don't see
how the photon at one detector can "communicate" with the photon at
the other - even if you get rid of time they are still separated in
the remaining 3D flattened space, because the detectors are separated.

BR

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Nonlocality, QM weirdness.
    ... >> You cannot build a clock out of the whole universe. ... > Where is this observer? ... comfortable wave to observe, and judge the universe against that wave. ... >> to this relativism. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Read this one, the other is a mess! Re: Is the speed of light really constant ?
    ... the questions I was asking concerning the doppler shifts. ... If an ultrasonic wave is reflected off a moving obstacle, ... Relativity. ... the observer), then the stable properties required for the ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Nonlocality, QM weirdness.
    ... I am thinking that the observer would be the approximate ... >> comfortable wave to observe, and judge the universe against that wave. ... An illusion of relativity which does actually exist, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Riding on a photo
    ... > I was listening to a popular account of relativity and the old ... > what the universe would look like from the point of view of a photon. ... An observer on a photon would see all other photons at rest, ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Re: Aether is the empty space in which the Universe sits
    ... 'Relativity' that Special and General Relativity are only valid ... SR illustrations always show a universe expanding with every change in the ... Using source and observer rather two sources in order to obtain less ... observer traveled fast enough across that distance, ...
    (sci.physics)