tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post7189270768180631968..comments2023-05-10T08:55:47.701-07:00Comments on Richard Carrier Blogs: Calling All PhysicistsRichard Carrierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comBlogger78125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-9570782547633892442011-09-17T16:51:56.670-07:002011-09-17T16:51:56.670-07:00Vratko Polák said... I just say that nature of phy...<b>Vratko Polák said...</b> <i>I just say that nature of physical equations is much closer to "time is quantity measured by clock" view.</i><br /><br />The one entails the other. Thus you cannot logically maintain they are different or separable. Imagine if you said "I just say that the nature of physical space is much closer to 'space is a a quantity measured by a ruler' Richard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-60228114448252376352011-09-17T16:34:00.241-07:002011-09-17T16:34:00.241-07:00Larkus said... You should rather credit Immanuel K...<b>Larkus said...</b> <i>You should rather credit Immanuel Kant.</i><br /><br />Immanuel Kant knew about bowling balls? I thought he was only barely acquainted with pillows. :-)<br /><br /><i>Doesn't this example presuppose the existence of gravity?</i><br /><br />No, only geometry. (The example could obtain even in orbit, and even if the ball and pillow are in the same reference frame.) But Richard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-57102088643383744552011-09-11T10:45:15.612-07:002011-09-11T10:45:15.612-07:00Richard Carrier said:
I have to give props to Chr...Richard Carrier said:<br /><br /><i>I have to give props to Christian apologist William Lane Craig who gives his own example of a bowling ball depressing a pillow: even when zero time passes, we are observing causation (the depression would not exist or have the shape it does but for the ball, therefore the ball is causing the depression even if no time ever exists).</i><br /><br />You should Larkushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00422596746771378835noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-34893242242711651222011-09-09T23:02:16.446-07:002011-09-09T23:02:16.446-07:00Reading up, this you said just now sank in:
"...Reading up, this you said just now sank in:<br /><br />"where everything is immediately adjacent to everything else and only appears separated in space according to perspective, with low energy states (resting objects) appearing slower and more separated from each other than high energy states (speed of light)"<br /><br />All of what we see and the space between it being simply the chancecosmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12502107224686183399noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-68551255064520682452011-09-09T22:49:17.511-07:002011-09-09T22:49:17.511-07:00Vratko: I don't really see how this is relevan...Vratko: I don't really see how this is relevant, but your hypothetical "one way portal" would not need to sacrifice causation. It'd only sacrifice causation in one direction. Causation isn't necessarily temporal (by any working definition I've ever come across.)<br /><br />As for the rest of what you said I have no comment's to make because it's over my head ;)<chancecosmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12502107224686183399noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-17075266586229150182011-08-24T04:00:29.307-07:002011-08-24T04:00:29.307-07:00Richard Carrier said... But time is a location not...<b>Richard Carrier said...</b> <i>But time is a location not an "internal state."</i><br /><br />For me, time is just the quantity measured by clock. Time as a location is a more complicated concept. If I was the astronaut in my magical analogy, I would have problem answering what was my location at the "moment" of travelling. But I would not have such a big problem telling Vratko Polákhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06855758793385541412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-26908450111317850232011-08-23T17:00:36.545-07:002011-08-23T17:00:36.545-07:00ab138501: Thank you for that. I'll look it ove...<b>ab138501:</b> Thank you for that. I'll look it over and report back here.Richard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-44345589872139342242011-08-23T17:00:12.991-07:002011-08-23T17:00:12.991-07:00chancecosm said… everything we see in the night sk...<b>chancecosm said…</b> <i>everything we see in the night sky is actually being tunneled to us instantly, from an actual point in space-time that exists right "now."</i><br /><br />Not in our reference frame, only in the reference frame of the photons making the transit. But it does mean we are literally adjacent to the stars, via the photons connecting us, just still only in a Richard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-91973483452885078212011-08-23T16:34:18.159-07:002011-08-23T16:34:18.159-07:00Vratko Polák said… I agree that time is eliminated...<b>Vratko Polák said…</b> <i>I agree that time is eliminated, in the sense that the object (statue, astronaut, or photon) does not change its internal state while travelling. So it is just one instant of time for the object, even if it is apparently an interval for other observers.</i><br /><br />But time is a location not an "internal state." So either an object at <i>c</i> crosses Richard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-46798702547220059962011-08-21T14:43:33.594-07:002011-08-21T14:43:33.594-07:00If time and space contract to exactly 0 from the p...If time and space contract to exactly 0 from the point of origin of a photon to the point of arrival, then everything we see in the night sky is actually being tunneled to us instantly, from an actual point in space-time that exists right "now." <br /><br />That means even if it took 4 million years for a message to reach us from a planet X, it would actually be reaching us instantly chancecosmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12502107224686183399noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-81758551158183500182011-08-21T04:29:07.520-07:002011-08-21T04:29:07.520-07:00Richard – I just sent you an email that has a four...Richard – I just sent you an email that has a four-page word document attached to it. The subject line of the email is “Technical response to Calling All Physicists blog entry”. I am skeptical of the premises and conclusions in your EPRPaperCarrier2011b.doc, but even if we grant that your premises and conclusions are somehow true, I think that your proposal still fails. The four-page word ab138501https://www.blogger.com/profile/08479347833885547478noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-36902150375068205732011-08-19T05:51:50.326-07:002011-08-19T05:51:50.326-07:00So, my magical analogy failed to be correct for yo...So, my magical analogy failed to be correct for your hypothesis (many frames and photons know their future). But I presume the analogy is correct with respect to my hypothesis. So I want to know, whether I was successful when answering your question: <i>I don't see your hypothesis explaining what happens to that half an hour for the astronaut who zips through it in zero time</i> with magical Vratko Polákhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06855758793385541412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-54881601466901510082011-08-18T10:41:05.767-07:002011-08-18T10:41:05.767-07:00Vratko Polák said... From the point of view of the...<b>Vratko Polák said...</b> <i>From the point of view of the astronaut, at one instant of time she is on Earth, and at "the next instant" of time she is on Mars. She cannot tell if it were two instants or just one, but she can tell she is suddenly somewhere else. Distance and time may be eliminated, but she does not feel it as one point in spacetime.</i><br /><br />"Feeling" Richard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-40063022642444899642011-08-18T04:36:37.402-07:002011-08-18T04:36:37.402-07:00Richard Carrier said... Relativity eliminates dis...<b>Richard Carrier said...</b> <i> Relativity eliminates distance just as it does time, as soon as you reach velocity c. And once you do that, my theory follows. QED.</i><br /><br />Yes, relativity eliminates "the distance", but there are still some absolute quantities left, for example "minimal time interval measured on Earth between astronaut's departure from Earth and her Vratko Polákhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06855758793385541412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-45569865116856607882011-08-17T09:31:17.965-07:002011-08-17T09:31:17.965-07:00Vratko Polák said... And because time is relative...<b>Vratko Polák said... </b> <i>And because time is relative, there was no that half an hour to which something was needed to happen.</i><br /><br />Therefore, there was no "that 90 million miles" over which she crossed, either. My point exactly. Relativity eliminates distance just as it does time, as soon as you reach velocity c. And once you do that, my theory follows. QED.Richard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-19894644648603591072011-08-10T05:02:26.004-07:002011-08-10T05:02:26.004-07:00Richard Carrier said... You can't refute one h...<b>Richard Carrier said... </b><i>You can't refute one hypothesis by simply proposing another. We need evidence to adjudicate between them to know which hypothesis is correct.</i><br /><br />Evidence can distinguish between incompatible full theories, but the two hypotheses in question are just theoretic frameworks. To turn them into full theories, they need to be completed, for example by Vratko Polákhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06855758793385541412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-80806828539252730032011-08-09T15:59:50.825-07:002011-08-09T15:59:50.825-07:00Richard said, "I can't find Maudlin. He i...Richard said, "I can't find Maudlin. He is no longer at Rutgers."<br /><br />I found a rumor that he is moving from Rutgers to NYU. I found it at http://takingupspacetime.wordpress.com/2011/03/01/faculty-move-tim-maudlin-from-rutgers-to-nyu/<br /><br />I highly recommend Maudlin's book "Quantum Non-Locality and Relativity". You can preview it at http://ab138501https://www.blogger.com/profile/08479347833885547478noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-20719992905597627182011-08-09T11:47:06.369-07:002011-08-09T11:47:06.369-07:00ab138501 said... Would it be possible to contact p...<b>ab138501 said...</b> <i>Would it be possible to contact professors who specialize in philosophy of physics, quantum mechanics, and the relationship between QM and relativity and get their take on your paper?</i><br /><br />Sure, if you know any so as to recommend me to them, please do so.<br /><br />It's probably futile to just blindly send the paper around. No one has any reason to pay Richard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-17645953672511578052011-08-09T11:23:15.264-07:002011-08-09T11:23:15.264-07:00Jack M said... Seems like your theory would predic...<b>Jack M said...</b> <i>Seems like your theory would predict <a href="http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-07-dont-quantum-world-doesnt.html" rel="nofollow">this result</a> as well, yes?</i><br /><br />Sorry, I don't see the connection.Richard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-44410727658025542982011-08-09T11:20:43.323-07:002011-08-09T11:20:43.323-07:00Jason said… What effect would this have on your fr...<b>Jason said…</b> <i>What effect would this have on your friend's coin flip? None, right? Knowing there is a line of communication open would not lead you to deduce that every time you get heads your friend will get tails.</i><br /><br />It's not about knowledge. It's about physical causation and geometry. If your coin was not being flipped but being dropped through a coin-flipping Richard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-80034785305347687732011-08-09T11:19:58.783-07:002011-08-09T11:19:58.783-07:00Jason said… it was never clear to me how you saw p...<b>Jason said…</b> <i>it was never clear to me how you saw photons encoding the information about what orientation the polarizers are at</i><br /><br />Because I specifically said I didn't know. My hypothesis would, if correct, then call for exploring how this interaction might operate (as my paper explains). <br /><br />It's akin to talking about gravity causing the motion of the planetsRichard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-57799385239287806132011-08-09T10:55:41.250-07:002011-08-09T10:55:41.250-07:00Jason said... It isn't clear to me what you im...<b>Jason said...</b> <i>It isn't clear to me what you imagine to be the distinction between real and apparent. Does it make some difference in the mathematics? If so then what are the differences?</i><br /><br />The very difference Vratko is proposing: I am saying the equations entailed by STR describe what is really happening (when no time passes between position 1 and 2, all points in time Richard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-16336815259830570672011-08-09T10:38:13.689-07:002011-08-09T10:38:13.689-07:00Vratko Polák said... My version of STR says the op...<b>Vratko Polák said...</b> <i>My version of STR says the opposite.</i><br /><br />So we are just talking about competing hypotheses. You can't refute one hypothesis by simply proposing another. We need evidence to adjudicate between them to know which hypothesis is correct. That's what I'm asking for.<br /><br />All my hypothesis states is that, e.g., when a hypothetical astronaut Richard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-55916400443593647532011-08-09T10:26:04.664-07:002011-08-09T10:26:04.664-07:00Jason said… From the paper: if CN5 still explains...<b>Jason said…</b> <i> From the paper: </i>if CN5 still explains what is happening, then the two electron detectors must have an entangled pair of photons connecting (a) the two detectors in the future (at the specific points in time when the electrons will collide with those detectors) to (b) the two electrons themselves at the moment of their entanglement <i>This is not possible on logical Richard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-89302534752044813472011-08-01T21:03:43.987-07:002011-08-01T21:03:43.987-07:00Richard Carrier said, "It could be polished f...Richard Carrier said, "It could be polished for a philosophy of science journal, however. But only if it does not have any glaring flaws, which is the stage I'm presently at (i.e. vetting it for conceptual flaws)."<br /><br />Would it be possible to contact professors who specialize in philosophy of physics, quantum mechanics, and the relationship between QM and relativity and get ab138501https://www.blogger.com/profile/08479347833885547478noreply@blogger.com