On 7/4/2025 3:52 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:
On Thursday, July 3, 2025 at 7:38:03 PM UTC-6 Brent Meeker wrote: On 7/3/2025 2:51 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:I definitely understand the mathematics and logic that for light speed to be frame invariant, length contraction and time dilation must occur. But I don't see any physical model that allows that to occur, and I don't think Relativity provides that model. AGYou seem to have a hang up about "models". What exactly are you asking for? A mechanical model of springs and masses like Faraday contrived for EM waves? Lorentz already derived his contraction by considering atoms as little particles held in place by EM forces? Isn't that "model" enough for you? BrentI'm not sure exactly what I am seeking, but logic alone leaves much to be desired in the context of Relativity. Lorentz's model is rarely, if ever, mentioned today in any discussion of Relativity, presumably because it's wrong, or doesn't adequately provide an explanation for length contraction, or possibly because logic is seen as sufficient to explain relativistic phenomena (when it does not IMO). As for Quentin's explanation of how many worlds come into being, he says they don't, but are always there, as if those I am supposed to think come into being at some intersection with its numerous different turns possible, were always implicit in the Universal WF, which perfectly knows the future? Quentin thinks this is a reasonable interpretation of the MWI, when IMO it's just untestable imagination. What's your opinion of this latest twist on the MWI, which is supposed to appeal to sober individuals? AG
I have sympathy for Quentin's idea. It's similar to Julian Barbour's; he analogizes a system as a river that gets divided unevenly. I'm interested in the role of entanglement. In an experiment the QM evolution before any measurement is isolated so that extraneous entanglements won't affect the experiment. But then when a measurement is made the system interacts with an instrument that is big enough to be quasi-classical, and that means it's already entangled with a bazillion other particles. What happens at this interaction? Does the QM become entangled thru the interaction with the instrument?
Jacob Barandes has developed a new interpretation of QM which has two advantages. First, he show's that mathematically it is a stochastic process with a small exception to being Markovian. So that connects it a lot of literature on stochastic processes. Second he introduces a phase of measurement in which probabilities of results are determined before they are realized in the post measurement state. This gets rid of the multiple worlds.
Brent Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/8f5b508c-3918-454c-98c9-2f59de25547e%40gmail.com.
