i.e. the modern version of Ptolemaic epicycles
On Sunday, 14 June 2020, 01:31:32 BST, ROGER ANDERTON
<r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>I wonder what they mean by "information" when they say in the introduction
>>that the "information speed" never exceeds the speed light.<<
I think its bluff.
Go back to Einstein 1905 when he started all this relativity madness, he never
said anything about there being "information speed".
Its just something that relativists have had to invent to try to save
relativity.
What they believe is relativity; they have just got all wrong.
Nothing in Einstein 1905 about c being a limiting speed; its just a
misinterpretation that they impose and go to absurd lengths to try to save.
On Sunday, 14 June 2020, 01:13:50 BST, H LV <hveeder...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 6:27 PM Jürg Wyttenbach <ju...@datamart.ch> wrote:
I recently had and still have some discussion on researchgate about
superluminal signal transmission by scalar waves. It is well known and even
classically allowed that the group/phase speed can be greater than the speed of
light.
This has been experimentally proven to be higher than at least 64 * c! :
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-08735-8
I wonder what they mean by "information" when they say in the introduction that
the "information speed" never exceeds the speed light.
It looks like we must rewrite Maxwell equation for dense matter as matter is
able to provide an extra force:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341931087_Revision_of_Maxwell's_Equations
The method used in the proposal is "basically the same" I used in SO(4) physics
to derive all known nuclear properties including strong force, gravity etc..
It looks like energy transport to any point in an SO(4) entangled system is
instantaneous at least for the added phase part that couples 2D orthogonal to
the classic wave. This of course basically violates GR but an entangled system
looks like a black hole and thus it is external to the horizon of GR!
Discussion:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Did_I_actually_measure_a_superluminous_signal_thus_disproving_the_relativity_theory
J.W.
PS: On RG you also find many different experimental refutations of GR but this
is anyway mots since we know that gravity is an (SO(4) based) EM force...
Quantum entanglement suggests that a transfer of information does not
necessarily require a transfer of energy.
It seems to me that a dynamical geometry program exemplifies information
transfer without energy. For example, imagine a horizontal line with two
points. One point (O) is fixed and the other point (A) is movable. Constuct
circle which is centred on point O and such the circumference of the circle
passes through A. The circle intercepts the line at a second point B. If the
point A is dragged left or right the radius of the circle increases or
decreases and this motion instantaneously changes the location of point B
without a transfer of energy. "Dragged" is used metaphorically so no inertia or
forces of any kind cause the point B to move in the opposite direction of point
A. One could say this is just an exercise in abstract geometry which does not
represent the "real" world, but why should such geometric relationships be
excluded from the domain of what is real?
Harry
Harry
On 12.06.2020 18:25, H LV wrote:
Typically mathematical issues that arise never seem to be regarded as
evidence that there is something seriously wrong with a theory. I think this
attitude exists for a few reasons. First mathematical models have been
tremendously successful at describing patterns in nature. Second, the
structure of the mathematical models themselves can suggest the existence of
novel particles such as the positron. Third, mathematical problems seem to be
eventually rectified at a later date.
Also, even if the positron had not been found I doubt it would have led
physicists to doubt the validity of the mathematics of quantum mechanics. For
example the mathematics of special relativity allows for the existence of
tachyons (faster than light particles) but as far I know tachyons have never
been detected and their absence has never led physicists to doubt the validity
of special relativity.
Harry
On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 9:19 PM Che <comandantegri...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 3:30 PM ROGER ANDERTON <r.j.ander...@btinternet.com>
wrote:
>>it might be preferable to accept them as each true within their respective
domains<<
When "they" talk of those "domains" - there is a lot of handwaving; general
relativity is often said to breakdown at the singularity, and quantum mechanics
supposedly fails to be able to deal with gravity; but no maths for that is
presented as to precisely when equations from such theories fail.
Isn't that 'divide-by-zero' issues..?
On Monday, 8 June 2020, 20:03:09 BST, H LV <hveeder...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 4:30 PM ROGER ANDERTON
<r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>Thoughts?<<
there are problems combining relativity (especially general relativity) with
quantum physics, so when people try to talk from things combining them then
they are not on solid ground.
I only mentioned SR because it is often wrongly invoked to dismiss any
experiment needing simultaneity. On the issue reconciling the two domains of
quantum mechanics and SR/GR, instead of trying to change one or the other or
both, it might be preferable to accept them as each true within their
respective domains and build a bridge between the domains by integrating them
technologically instead trying to merge them into a single mathematical theory.
Harry
From my point-of-view relativity has been mistranslated and misunderstood
so false claims are made about it. My latest video-I think it was mainly
written by his wife.
On Wednesday, 3 June 2020, 17:25:51 BST, H LV <hveeder...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Quantum Non-locality explained by Sabine Hossenfelder
https://youtu.be/XL9wWeEmQvo
I disagree with the conclusion that non-locality cannot be used to send an
FLT message. What is overlooked is that an indeterminate state, i.e. unmeasured
state is also a type of information.
If the transmitter and the receiver have synchronised clocks (which is
possible in SR) then the transmitter can send a message by a sequence of binary
choices: either measure or not measure the particle's spin in the diagonal
direction at a given time. What the receiver detects will be meaningfully
informed by the sequence of the transmitter's choices.
Thoughts?
Harry
--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr. 22
8910 Affoltern am Albis
+41 44 760 14 18
+41 79 246 36 06
