I need some information

[HIENVN]

There appears to be atleast two definite trend in the people who still insist on smearing Einsteins reputation, always without substance(I must add).

 

 

I will deam it a miracle if any of the knockers can comprehend what I'm saying without me getting a piece of chalk out.

 

-My idea was based on Einstein’s last idea (since 1921); therefore, this idea seems to contrast with his idea before 1921. The concept of Einstein changed since he introduced unified field theory in 1921 that almost scientists have rejected this unified field theory. You are thinking I am on “smearing Einstein’s reputation” while I am on “perfecting Einstein’s reputation.”

-Relativity theory have spent too much brainpower of human and we should finish it in a peaceful manner to protect the mind of our next generation, and I wish I am not alone in this opinion.

[imaplanck.]

-My idea was based on Einstein’s last idea (since 1921); therefore, this idea seems to contrast with his idea before 1921. The concept of Einstein changed since he introduced unified field theory in 1921 that almost scientists have rejected this unified field theory. You are thinking I am on “smearing Einstein’s reputation” while I am on “perfecting Einstein’s reputation.”

-Relativity theory have spent too much brainpower of human and we should finish it in a peaceful manner to protect the mind of our next generation, and I wish I am not alone in this opinion.

 

I hope I'm not alone in the opinion that subsiquent generations need to be protected from ubsubstantiated assertions, from people that apparently dont understand the science in the first place .

 

 

Theories do need to be constantly tested(that's just good science), but false assertions are a blight on impressionable minds.

[HIENVN]

Yes, but how would (say) a school kid that doesnt even understand relativity in the first place, have any hope of disproving it. Seeing as for a century a constant barrage from George( the corner shop owner) to the most gifted of physicists have tried and failed to substantiate a single flaw?

 

The school kid may not need to understand relativity in the first place, because future scientific universities may not teach their students about relativity theory in 1905! The future professors of universities would be smart enough to know relativity theory in 1905 is a wrong theory.

[imaplanck.]

The school kid may not need to understand relativity in the first place, because future scientific universities may not teach their students about relativity theory in 1905! The future professors of universities would be smart enough to know relativity theory in 1905 is a wrong theory.

Relativity has stood up to testing so many times, and has more importantly proved predicive! No proper/least bit sane physicist will ever teach relativity as wrong! Just like he will never tutor the complete contradiction of classical physics. Christians think they are smart enough to state evolution is wrong without taking a bona fide science class in their life, too.

 

 

The key here is(even if you dont understand the science itself) to atleast understand the scientific process before making ludicrous claims.

[HIENVN]

Are you the (n)billionth person to attempt an outsmarting of Einstein on special? general? or both?

 

 

Have you passed any exam to prove you atleast comprehend what Einstein was conveying in his 2 famous papers?

 

Einstein introduced 4 (not 2 as you said) famous papers in 1905 that some papers related to the special relativity theory. Although relativity theory supported quantum theory in the first step (of quantum theory), but Einstein would like to improve his relativity theory since 1920; because this theory is not a scientific theory as the confirmation of 1921’s Commissioners for Nobel Prizes for Physics.

Relativity theory is very complex because everyone can understand this theory by themselves knowledge. And then I am very difficult to say “relativity theory is wrong,” which I know most our members have supported for this theory. I would like to invite everyone try to improve relativity theory as a wish of Einstein in his last life when I try to prove some wrong of this theory.

[imaplanck.]

No!:hihi: he produced 2 papers introducing relativity! The first on special, and the second 10 years later incorporating gravity ( the general paper).

 

 

He surely produced more than 4 papers which regarded relativity in some way.

[Fatstep]

 

Finding an alternative theory, or *improving upon* relativity theory, is more likely IMHO.

 

Does finding an alternative theory not imply that something was wrong with the original theory, in essence that would be saying relativity was wrong, and it is now correct. :confused:

[Fatstep]

Christians think they are smart enough to state evolution is wrong without taking a bona fide science class in their life, too.

 

You should not be so general in your statements. I have taken higher-level science classes, yet I believe evolution, the kind that says we're apes, is wrong.

[owl]

...

The flaw of the argument is the assumption that entangled particles can be modeled with human beings, or any macroscopic information-storing scheme. It appeals directly to intuition, with language like “hey, you're [you and your friend] smarter than a couple of photons”.

 

My argument does not depend on any special features of human beings. The only assumptions of the argument are as follows:

 

1. Relativity entails locality (no causal connections between spacelike separated events).

2. Nonlocal influence occurs if the physical probability of A, conditional on all events in A's backward light cone, is different from the physical probability of A conditional on all events in A's backward light cone plus some event at spacelike separation from A.

3. The empirical predictions of quantum mechanics with regard to entagled particles are correct.

4. Some basic arithmetic and probability theory.

 

The example of the people playing the game is purely for illustrative purposes. No special characteristics of humans are used in the proof at all.

[owl]

Newtonian physics was not proven wrong, just not applicable to all contexts. Einstein's theories did what Newton's did, and more.

 

I think that this view rests on reasoning something like this: "Newtonian physics makes quantitative predictions that are very close to the truth in most cases; therefore, Newtonian physics is correct, in those cases." I think that argument depends on two problematic assumptions:

 

1. First, that a theory should be identified with its quantitative, empirical predictions, not with the theoretical claims that are used to explain them; thus, if a theory gives the correct quantitative predictions, even if its theoretical explanation of them is completely wrong, then the theory is still true.

 

2. Second, that if two numbers are very close, then they are equal.

 

If we reject those assumptions, we can see that Newtonian physics is incompatible with relativity. According to Newtonian physics, space and time are two separate things, there is an absolute time order, and the sizes, shapes, and masses of bodies are objective. In relativity theory, there is only a single object, 'spacetime', and time order, size, shape, and mass are all reference-frame-relative. These theoretical claims are very different from each other. So if one theory is correct, then the other is fundamentally wrong.

 

Second, the quantitative predictions of Newtonian physics are false for nearly all cases (except when you have completely motionless objects). If a prediction is only approximately correct, then it is not correct; .999 is not equal to 1. This is true even if one cannot reliably measure the error. That is, if we know that a quantitative prediction is false, even if we cannot directly measure that error, then we know that any theory that entails that prediction is false.

[CraigD]

My argument does not depend on any special features of human beings.

Owl’s argument does, as I understand it, depend on drawing an equivalence between coherent, entangled fundamental particles, and, as I put it in post #, “human beings, or any macroscopic information-storing scheme” (italics mine). As I understand quantum mechanics, this is a fundamental and critical error.

 

Consider a description of the pair of particles (electrons in the linked-to article, but photons would work as well) in the “EPR paradox.

 

The 2 electrons have opposite spins, but, until a measurement of one or the other’s spin is made, both are unknown, and, more strongly in a superposition (has equal probability of equal-interval length ranges of values) of all possible opposite value pairs. When a measurement of either electron is made, this superposition “collapses” (has zero probability for some ranges of values).

 

In the usual formalism of quantum mechanics, the undetermined (“coherent”) state of the electrons are described by a wavefunction, from which the probability of a specific measurement (such as the polarizing filters and detectors in an actual EPR paradox experiment) detecting a specific value (the spin) of either particle can be calculated. This wave function is not a “rigid body” in the formalism of Special Relativity (for discussions of EPR, which does not involve gravity, only the less complicated formalism of SR need be considered). The value of one spatial coordinate of the function does not need to “communicate” with another for its value to be changed - the entire wave function may simply change, all at once, for all of the infinite spatial regions of its domain. This is, incidentally (and IMHO), the "spooky action at a distance" that so disturbed the authors of EPR (the “E” being Einstein) – they were profoundly uncomfortable with the notion that the wave function – a mathematical abstraction – could not be thought of as made of “real” bodies of some kind.

 

Now, consider replacing the electrons with something macroscopic, like a pair of human being, or of data-storage devices (paper, computer, etc).

 

Unless they’re very weird (eg: cooled to near absolute zero into a Bose-Einstein condensate) they can’t “store” “spin information” (the “strategy” described in owl’s paper) the way the electrons do, as actual quantum spin. They must store it some more elaborate, macroscopic way – potentials, chemicals, and arrangements of nerves in human brains, smears of graphite on paper, electrons in silicone chips, etc. These things are physical – in principle, described in the formalism of quantum mechanics by a wave function – but few if any of them share complimentary quantum attributes with their counterpart person, paper, computer, etc., nor does the information they encode. “Measuring” that information – extracting it via a conversation, reading it optically, or copying it via a computer interface – is not the same as measuring the spin of an electron.

 

For this reason, replacing the electrons in the EPR paradox with human beings, or any macroscopic information-storing scheme, changes it so that it cannot (as owl’s paper nicely explains) produce the same outcome.

 

The rest of owl’s “Why relativity and QM are False” argument depends on being able to make this replacement. Without it, there is not need for the strategy he has (correctly and successfully, IMHO) argued is impossible, so his whole argument fails.

[owl]

The 2 electrons have opposite spins, but, until a measurement of one or the other’s spin is made, both are unknown, and, more strongly in a superposition (has equal probability of equal-interval length ranges of values) of all possible opposite value pairs. When a measurement of either electron is made, this superposition “collapses” (has zero probability for some ranges of values).

[. . .]

The value of one spatial coordinate of the function does not need to “communicate” with another for its value to be changed - the entire wave function may simply change, all at once, for all of the infinite spatial regions of its domain. This is, incidentally (and IMHO), the "spooky action at a distance" that so disturbed the authors of EPR (the “E” being Einstein) – they were profoundly uncomfortable with the notion that the wave function – a mathematical abstraction – could not be thought of as made of “real” bodies of some kind.

 

This description shows how the orthodox interpretation of quantum mechanics (QM) is non-local. Note that the issue is not whether the wave function is "abstract" or "real". The standard interpretation clearly says that the measurement on one electron changes the physical probabilities for the outcomes of measurements on the other electron. That's true no matter what else you want to say about wave functions, regardless of whether a wave function is "abstract", "real", etc.

 

The issue also is not whether something communicates with something else. The issue is whether spacelike separated events can influence one another. To see that the standard interpretation of QM is incompatible with relativity, you only need three premises:

 

1. Relativity entails locality.

2. Nonlocality occurs if the physical probability of an event, given everything in its backward light cone, differs from the physical probability of the event given everything in its backward light cone plus something else at spacelike separation.

3. The standard interpretation of QM implies that the physical probability of an event is affected in that way (as in [2]).

 

Nothing there relies on any premises about human beings or macroscopic objects. To restate (2) and (3), let A be some possible event at some spacetime location. Let B be another possible event at spacelike separation from A. Finally, let K be a complete specification of everything in A's absolute past (backward light cone). If relativity is correct, then K includes everything that could causally influence A. Therefore:

 

P(A|K) = P(A|K,:hihi:

 

But quantum mechanical probabilities, uncontroversially, violate that relation.

 

Craig wrote, "the entire wave function may simply change, all at once, for all of the infinite spatial regions of its domain." This agrees with what I am saying. This is just a description of the mechanism of the nonlocality.

 

Now, why did I give the thought experiment about the two people playing the game, when the above argument is so much simpler? The reason is that the above argument only shows that the standard (Copenhagen) interpretation of QM contradicts relativity. But there are other interpretations, including ones that do not have wave-function collapses. I wanted to show that any theory that agrees with the quantum mechanical predictions must contradict relativity--that is, that it's the observational predictions of QM that are incompatible with relativity.

 

Now, consider replacing the electrons with something macroscopic, like a pair of human being, or of data-storage devices (paper, computer, etc). Unless they’re very weird [...] they can’t “store” “spin information” (the “strategy” described in owl’s paper) the way the electrons do, as actual quantum spin. They must store it some more elaborate, macroscopic way [...] “Measuring” that information – extracting it via a conversation, reading it optically, or copying it via a computer interface – is not the same as measuring the spin of an electron.

 

I think these remarks reflect a misunderstanding of my argument. I am not saying that you and your friend can't win the game in my example because of some details about physics, or about how the information-storage media you'd be using work. In my example, you can't win the game because it can be proven that the winning strategy requires you to choose a certain set of responses negative one-eighth of the time, and that is conceptually impossible. If you look back at my argument, you'll see that that's how it went; it did not rely on any assumptions about the physics of information-storage media, etc.

 

If you wish, reread the argument, making the following substitutions:

 

- For "people", substitute "things".

- For the room, substitute a spacetime region.

- For the assumption that the two people can't communicate after leaving the room, substitute the assumption that what one of the things does cannot influence what the other thing does once they are spacelike separated.

- For the three questions that the people are asked, substitute three measurements that can be done on the "things".

- For the answers to the questions, substitute the outcomes of the measurements.

- For the idea of the people "agreeing" on an answer, substitute that of the things having a property that determines the outcome of a measurement.

 

The resulting argument will be much more boring, but otherwise it will go exactly the same.

[MewSkitty]

This place is much more sophisticated than the other science forum I go to. In that place, everyone (almost everyone) uses chat speak and flames people for mostly no reason. I hated the way they treated me after posting my theory on how time travle is possible, but cannot infulence the future (If one would like to know this theory just PM me.) Anyways, my hopes at disprooveing a part of realativity is the part about how nothing can go faster than the speed of light. My reason for thinking this is as follows:

 

If matter can be turned into energy and energy to matter (e=mc^2) then how would it be possible to create mass out of something that dose not have mass? Light is a form of energy, and IMHO I believe that energy has to have a mass, even if it is too small to be measured by todays instraments. In this case, light itself would have to have some mass. In Einstein's theory, it states that anything with any mass at all would have infitine mass if it goes as fast, or faster then the speed of light. If this be true, then light itself would have infitine mass. Please correct me if I'm wrong about something. It's been a few years since I studied relativity and I may have forgetten something that will proove me wrong. Yes, I am lazy. I could easly check out the book "Relativity: The Specail and General Theory" by Albert Einstein again and double check my work. Anyways, I have a cold right now and it's getting late. I love how everyone is smarter when it comes to posting on this forum than the other one I go to. I look forward to future involvment in this forum.

[Erasmus00]

Owl, You are essentially correct in saying that relativity and non-relativistic quantum mechanics don't agree. This is a true statement and won't surprise any physicist. The reason is even more simple then what you presented: the Schroedinger equation is simply not relativistically invariant. If you go to a different frame of reference it changes. Schroedinger was well aware of this failure, as were all the fathers of quantum mechanics. Schroedinger's first attempt at a wave equation (now called a Klein-Gordon equation) was relativistically invariant BUT failed to reproduce the energy levels of hydrogen.

 

However, there is a fully relativistic formulation of quantum mechanics: quantum field theory, and we still have the EPR type "paradox." However, I believe your argument breaks down around

 

2. Nonlocality occurs if the physical probability of an event, given everything in its backward light cone, differs from the physical probability of the event given everything in its backward light cone plus something else at spacelike separation.

3. The standard interpretation of QM implies that the physical probability of an event is affected in that way (as in [2]).

 

You are using a CORRELATION to show that the physical probability has to change at B given a measurement at A. However, even in this weird instance, correlation does not imply causation.

 

To demonstrate a causal link, what you need to show is that measuring A and then B is different from measuring B and then A. It is standard to use the commutator (AB-BA) for causal links. It is a trivial excercise in quantum field theory to show that the commutator vanishes outside the light cone.

 

I also point out that various interpretations of quantum mechanics allow for a very strict locality, such as the many worlds interpretation.

-Will

[owl]

You are using a CORRELATION to show that the physical probability has to change at B given a measurement at A. However, even in this weird instance, correlation does not imply causation.

 

Suppose that there is a correlation between two types of events, A and B. You're right that it doesn't follow just from this that A and B are causally linked. What follows is that one of the following is the case: either

1. A and B are causally linked.
   
2. The correlation is coincidental. Or,
   
3. There is a common cause of A and B.
   

In the EPR-style examples (2) is ruled out for practical purposes, since the coincidence is too improbable--that is, everyone agrees that if you repeated the experiment a million times, you would get the quantum mechanical correlations over and over, so it's not coincidence. (3) is ruled out by conditionalizing on the complete description of everything in the backward light cone. That's why I included the "given K" clause in the probabilistic relation stated earlier,

 

P(A|K) = P(A|K,:evil:

 

That is, since we're already taking into account K, which includes everything that could possibly influence A (assuming locality), any further correlation between A and B is not explained by a common cause. Any common cause of A and B would be included in K, so (K&:) would have the same effect as K alone. That's why the two probabilities above should be equal.

 

To demonstrate a causal link, what you need to show is that measuring A and then B is different from measuring B and then A.

 

This isn't necessary for causation as such; it's conceptually possible that either of two events would cause the other, so that the same overall state of affairs results whichever order the events happen in. E.g., the world could be set up such that if I hit you, you will (as a result) hit me, and at the same time, if you hit me, I will (as a result) hit you, so that both of us wind up being hit whichever order the events happen in.

 

Of course, what you're talking about is a condition that's required for consistency with relativity: to be consistent with special relativity, a theory's predictions must not vary depending on what reference frame you choose. Of course I agree with that condition. I'm just saying that that is not identical with the "no spacelike causal connections" condition. The "no spacelike causal connections" condition is stronger than the "Lorentz invariance" condition.

 

Now, at this point, you might just disagree that "no causal connections" is required in addition to Lorentz invariance. The reason I think it's required is that

1. According to relativity, for spacelike events, there is no objective time order, and
   
2. Causation implies an objective time order: an effect must, objectively, occur no earlier than its cause.
   

By the way, this argument doesn't originate with me. I first heard it from Tim Maudlin, who discusses it in his excellent book, Quantum Nonlocality and Relativity, although I don't think he endorses it.

[owl]

Light is a form of energy, and IMHO I believe that energy has to have a mass, even if it is too small to be measured by todays instraments. In this case, light itself would have to have some mass. In Einstein's theory, it states that anything with any mass at all would have infitine mass if it goes as fast, or faster then the speed of light.

 

Physicists have two different ways of defining mass, one which implies that photons have zero mass and one that implies that they have nonzero mass. This is described at math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.html

 

I think the main problem with your reasoning above is in the statement that "anything with any mass would have infinite mass if it goes ... the speed of light." What you mean is that anything with nonzero rest mass (the mass of the object when it's stationary) would have infinite mass if it were accelerated to the speed of light. So light cannot have nonzero rest mass. That's fine, since light cannot be stationary anyway.

[ughaibu]

Here's one by Erik Lange: Proof of the Falsity of the Special Theory of Relativity It's too technical for me.