Brent and Liz, It seems to me that the whole notion of the elephant being in two places at the SAME TIME presupposes a common present moment. Surely Liz and SA didn't mean that? That would be agreeing with Edgar's present moment of p-time!
Remember that this elephant is in different moments of clock time in two different frames. So how, unless there is a common present moment, can it be SIMULTANEOUSLY anywhere? That'a basically just saying that any object that is at two different clock times in two different frames has some actual existence at the same present moment in which it is at both of those different clock times. Seems to me this is an implicit argument that ALL of relativistic clock time variation actually takes place in a common present moment and that it's not really different relativistic views but an actual quantum splitting of that object into various probability states, one in each view. It seems to be an argument that relativity non-simultaneity produces Schroedinger's cats everywhere it occurs, and all those cats exist in a common present moment. Correct me if I'm wrong as I haven't read the SA article.... Edgar On Sunday, January 26, 2014 9:30:57 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > On 1/26/2014 12:40 PM, LizR wrote: > > It's common knowledge - well, amongst people who are interested in this > sort of thing - that an outside observer sees an infalling object get stuck > just outside the event horizon of a black hole (and then fade away as it > redshifts towards infinity) > > This was explained in a (relatively) recent "scientific american" > article using an elephant as the example. The point is that the BH creates > a superposition - the elephant is a "schrodinger's cat" which is in both > states (alive outside the BH, and dead inside). I found it fascinating that > this well known quantum thought experiment could be done for real (in > theory). > > > That's a very controversial theory though, since in the cat's (or > elephant's) frame there is notable about the horizon (per GR). Ahmed > Almheiri, Donald Marolf, Joseph Polchinski, James Sully > > http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.3123 > > and also Leonard Susskind have been proposing that there must be a > "firewall" at the horizon to prevent this kind of entanglement, because > otherwise it would violate quantum monogamy. > > > http://quantumfrontiers.com/2012/12/03/is-alice-burning-the-black-hole-firewall-controversy/ > > Hawking just delivered a somewhat cryptic paper saying there is no well > defined horizon. > > http://www.nature.com/news/stephen-hawking-there-are-no-black-holes-1.14583 > > I'm afraid SciAm has fallen into the trap of trying to compete with > "Discovery" and the tabloids. > > 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
