It says "Everything". Am I misreading? I am not faulting you for endorsing a nonsense interpretation of QM, the MWI, but you seem to have the privilege to limit what's appropriate for me. That's all. I suggest you check out my last post to Jesse. AG On Saturday, February 8, 2025 at 3:48:23 PM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> Mr. AG, read the f.....g name of the list. > > Le sam. 8 févr. 2025, 22:50, Alan Grayson <[email protected]> a écrit : > >> >> >> On Saturday, February 8, 2025 at 2:08:05 AM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> >> AG, what your thought experiment highlights is not a dichotomy in the >> definition of the paradox, but rather a fundamental difference between >> simultaneity-dependent contradictions and frame-dependent measurements in >> relativity. >> >> 1. Why simultaneity matters in the original paradox >> >> The original paradox only appears when people assume there’s a universal >> "at the same time" across both frames. >> >> Once we apply relativity of simultaneity, we see that each frame has its >> own internally consistent timeline, resolving the contradiction. >> >> 2. Why spatial juxtaposition doesn’t create a paradox >> >> The observers at the midpoint are not measuring simultaneity-dependent >> events, they are measuring spatial lengths, which are inherently >> frame-dependent. >> >> There is no expectation in SR that two observers from different frames >> must agree on length measurements—even if they occupy the same location in >> space at a given moment. >> >> 3. Space and time are similar but not interchangeable >> >> Yes, spacetime diagrams treat space and time symmetrically in some >> respects, but SR does not make space and time fully interchangeable. >> >> Time has an asymmetric role in causality (events in the past can >> influence the future, but not vice versa), while space does not. >> >> This asymmetry means that disagreements in simultaneity lead to apparent >> contradictions if misunderstood, while disagreements in spatial >> measurements do not—because SR already accounts for them via length >> contraction. >> >> 4. Your thought experiment is just a different way of looking at length >> contraction >> >> The observer in the garage frame sees the car fitting, because in their >> frame, the car is contracted. >> >> The observer in the car frame sees the car not fitting, because in their >> frame, the garage is contracted. >> >> These are not "contradictory" observations, just different >> frame-dependent measurements—exactly like time dilation or >> velocity-dependent mass. >> >> The original paradox relied on a false assumption of absolute >> simultaneity—hence why simultaneity "resolves" it. >> Your thought experiment doesn’t introduce a new paradox—it just >> reinforces how relativity treats space and time differently and why length >> contraction, like time dilation, is not paradoxical, just unintuitive. >> >> Quentin >> >> Hope this discussion about well known facts for about 120 years will end >> and we can return to everything-list purposes. >> >> >> Yeah, it's done, provided philosophical issues are excluded from "list >> purposes". If you recall, Brent was insistent that in the context of the >> paradox, there is no objective reality. This means, if anything, that the >> results of SR are appearances, or just appearances, or mere appearances. >> Resutls depend upon the frame of reference of observers, so there's no >> problem if they're contradictory. OTOH, since clocks in the GPS system >> experience measurable delays due to SR effects, its results surely seem >> objectively real. But we can just toss that issue under the rug, as >> "philosophy".and go on to "legitimate" list purposes, which exclude obvious >> foundational issues which were not completely resolved in 1905. Included in >> subjects which pass your test include arguments against frequentist >> probability in QM because some probabilities are so small, they can't be >> realized in the lifetime of the universe. DId it ever occur to you that >> these unrealized probabilities might be the result of wf solutions that >> extend infinitely in space and time? Have you noticed that the tails of >> these wf's extend infinitely in time and space? Ignoring that, what is your >> alleged solution; the MWI. Did it ever occur to you that at every >> T-intersection, there is a countable set of outcomes for every turn, in >> fact for any turn anywhere, by anything, including the common ant, the >> multitude of species of flying insects. and prairie dogs whenever they look >> around for predators? This is the foolishness you apparently endorse as >> "list-purposes". What you apparetly prefer are non-interacting worlds, the >> probability of each is indeterminate. And even on that single turn at any >> intersection, you can't even explain how the sum of probabilites of a >> countable set of outcomes can equal unity. In summary, IMO, you have a >> self-serving view of the legitimate content of list purposes. AG >> >> >> Le sam. 8 févr. 2025, 08:55, Alan Grayson <[email protected]> a écrit : >> >> >> >> On Thursday, February 6, 2025 at 2:23:45 PM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> On Thursday, February 6, 2025 at 5:28:34 AM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> >> AG, this is the closest you’ve come to an actual discussion, so I’ll give >> you a straight answer. >> >> Your question boils down to whether simultaneity alone is enough to >> resolve the paradox, or if there's still an issue when two observers, >> co-located in space but in different frames, observe contradictory outcomes. >> >> Why Simultaneity Resolves the Paradox: >> >> 1. The "paradox" only exists if you expect a single, universal answer to >> the question, "Does the car fit?"—which would require a preferred frame of >> reference. But SR explicitly denies the existence of such a frame. >> >> >> 2. Simultaneity isn’t just a technicality—it’s fundamental to how events >> are ordered in each frame. In the garage frame, the car is fully inside at >> one moment because simultaneity in that frame aligns the back entering and >> the front still inside. In the car frame, simultaneity shifts, meaning by >> the time the back enters, the front has already exited. The disagreement is >> built into SR itself. >> >> Addressing Your "Co-Located Observers" Thought Experiment: >> >> You suggest that if two observers are spatially co-located but in >> different frames, they would observe contradictory facts. But this is where >> you’re making an error. >> >> 1. Frame membership matters: Each observer is still bound to their own >> frame’s simultaneity rules. Just because they are momentarily at the same >> point in space does not mean they share the same perception of simultaneity >> or event ordering. >> >> >> 2. Contradictory observations are expected, not paradoxical: In >> relativity, observers in different frames frequently measure different >> physical quantities for the same event (lengths, time intervals, etc.). >> This is no different. The garage observer measures the car fitting because >> their simultaneity rules allow it. The car observer measures it not fitting >> because their simultaneity rules say otherwise. Each observer’s measurement >> is internally consistent in their own frame—so there’s no contradiction >> within SR. >> >> >> 3. Would additional observers change anything? >> No. Additional observers in each frame will confirm their own frame’s >> version of events, reinforcing the idea that simultaneity dictates >> different conclusions. There is no paradox because neither frame’s >> measurement is "more real" than the other. >> >> The mistake is assuming that because two observers are momentarily >> co-located, they must agree on event sequences. They do not. Their velocity >> relative to each other still dictates their simultaneity slicing of >> spacetime, and that’s what resolves the paradox. >> >> If you truly accept that simultaneity is relative and that SR allows for >> frame-dependent measurements, then you should see why "fitting and not >> fitting" is not a contradiction but a natural consequence of relativity. >> >> If you still think there’s a paradox, then ask yourself: what fundamental >> assumption are you making that requires a single absolute answer to "Does >> the car fit?" Because that’s where the actual mistake lies. >> >> Quentin >> >> >> FWIW, I wasn't seeking to prove in this thought experiment that there's >> an absolute answer to whether the car fits. In fact, I was alleging the >> opposite, that with juxtaposed observers at the midpoint of the garage, the >> car fits in one frame, and doesn't fit in the other. What I was alleging is >> that this result seems curiously similar to the paradox when using "at the >> same time" erroneously, whereas in this thought experiment only"same space" >> is involved, not same time. AG >> >> >> What this thought experiment shows is curious *dichotomy *concerning the >> definition of the paradox. As long as it's assumed fitting and not fittling >> occur at the same TIME, a "timely" form of juxtaposition, we have a paradox >> (ostensibly resolved by the disagreement about simultaneity). But when >> SPACE is juxtaposed, it's *not* considered a paradox. You'll note that >> in the spacetime diagrams we have one dimension of time and one of space, >> which have similar properties, albeit not identical. We also know that >> given the initial condition, the car never fits from car's frame of >> reference, and for a sufficient velocity, it will fit from the garage's >> frame of reference. So the model of the spatial juxtapostion of the >> observers at the halfway point in garage makes sense. AG >> >> >> >> Le jeu. 6 févr. 2025, 11:36, Alan Grayson <[email protected]> a écrit : >> >> >> >> On Wednesday, February 5, 2025 at 4:23:46 PM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> On Wednesday, February 5, 2025 at 3:37:31 PM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> >> AG, the fact that your only response is to repeat "PRICK" like a broken >> record says everything about your inability to engage in actual discussion. >> >> >> FWIW, we can engage in a rational discussion if you would cease making >> accusations about my motives and state of mind. I've reviiewed some of your >> earlier explanations of the alleged paradox, and your more or less constant >> complaint that I downplay the role of simultaneity in the resolution. While >> I admit that my initial proposed solution was mistaken -- that length >> contraction was alone sufficient to resolve the paradox -- I still fail to >> see why simultaneity does the trick. I say this because all it does is show >> that fitting and not fitting cannot occur "at the same time". But once it's >> acknowleged that each frame in SR has its own set of clocks, not >> synchronized with the clocks in some other frame, the concept "at the same >> time" is meaningless. So, if you agree so far, the question becomes whether >> fitting and not fitting "at different times" remains a paradox to resolve. >> Although, "at the same time" is meaningless, it's possible to imagine the >> car midway within the garage, and two juxtaposed observers, one in each >> frame, which observe the car fitting and not fitting, now NOT simultaneous, >> but spatially co-located. Can this mean another form of the paradox is >> alive and well, since each observer has contradictory observations (where >> additional observers are added where necessary to confirm the >> observations)? Although SR allows measurement to be frame dependent, why >> isn't this stuation* essentially identical *to the one which requires >> simutaneity arguments to allegedly resolve? AG >> >> -- >> >> 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/997c5736-cf45-482b-9511-2cccdc7a1b48n%40googlegroups.com >> >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/997c5736-cf45-482b-9511-2cccdc7a1b48n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >> . >> >> -- >> 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/986b5bd9-7547-417a-b396-7797414ee9aen%40googlegroups.com >> >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/986b5bd9-7547-417a-b396-7797414ee9aen%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >> . >> > -- 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/79bb53ed-57ff-4aa2-ac1b-a0f0917069e5n%40googlegroups.com.
