"Spooky action at a distance" What did he mean?

I read the text you refer to:
src: http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/E=mcsquared/proof.html

and at no time does he mention why the speed of 'c' is 299792458 m/s and why it is invariant ( as far as I can see)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Just thinking out loud...

IMO These two words are significant in that for any outcome to be valid they must ultimately derive to zero ( unity and invariance )

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That's exactly what my last idea (absolute zero duration of the instant that is the present and which explains the speed of entanglement) accomplishes, and which Witten's math utterly failed to capture. Entanglement is about the quantum field that is at rest with respect to all other motion or fields in the universe.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

A cubic solid volume 1 meter on each edge is enclosed 'bordered' on each of its 12 edges by laser beams. Is there any inertial state of motion (or orientation) in which any edge would not continue to be bound by the volume enclosed by these beams? For the present, you may ignore any Doppler shifts or spreading of the beams for the purposes of this thought experiment.

 

are you referring to the apparent solid edges or the spacial edges? ( referring to the space that the cube takes up)

 

I'm defining a volume of matter by means of its edges and also by energy. There are important differences between the two.

There is a good reason I am defining the outline of a material object this way. We are going to purge Special Relativity of 4D Minkowski - Euclidean hyperbolic rotations and relate SR for matter and energy to the quantum fields in which they respectively rest and propagate.

 

Perhaps the detail of your demonstration may be best for another thread.

How ever I do have a question for you which is more about logic than the actual thought experiment.

When you say "A cubic solid volume 1 meter on each edge is enclosed 'bordered' on each of its 12 edges by laser beams" what space time paradigm are you employing to do so?

 

As a philosopher of science, that is a question I would have anticipated you would ask. But before answering that question, is it not appropriate to apply some science we already know to try and answer a more fundamental question? What is the difference between the two manifestations of energy before us? Are either or both of them to be considered real? What does it mean to change one form into the other?

By means of the standard model, we know that the cube, made of iron, for the purposes of discussion, is mostly empty space. The nucleus of each iron atom is held together by means of strong nuclear force. The electron is fundamental in the present model. That is subject to change. Electroweak interactions and their W and Z boson exchanges also are responsible, along with electric charge, for holding atoms together. Unless you insist, there us no need to discuss how quarks and gluons interact, but suffice it to say that it is complex. By means of comparison, relativity is simple, but pervades this model on every level already. It in part determines how large atoms can be by means of basically the same physical constraint: the limited speed of light in a vacuum. But this model of atomic structure was produced by means of a Euclidean topological (not relativistic) model from the start. This is likely to have been a mistake.

As long as we remain at rest with respect to the cube, geometry works just fine. The cube and ourselves, if it is on Earth, is already flying at relativistic speed with respect to galaxies that are at cosmological distances. Both the distant galaxy and ourselves almost certainly began at rest, in the same frame of reference; a quantum field that is at rest with respect to any virtual or real energy ever created.

 

The laser beams provide energy at a particular wavelength at rest. Just the way NIST defines a meter. Nothing mind bending so far. Euclidean math works fine with respect to the cube, within certain limits.

 

Not a lot to do with philosophy but more about your starting premise.

You have suggested a solid 1 meter cube that has lasers equipped and intend to demolish the space time paradigm that creates the cube in the first place ( as far as I can tell )

This is the problem when dealing with universal fundamentals that seems to be so often over looked.

To be successful you need to show how you can construct your Cube with it's lasers using the space time paradigm you intend to demonstrate and then compare paradigms IMO

In other words ( please correct me If I have got the wrong end of the stick) you require Euclidean geometry to be valid to arrive at a conclusion that renders Euclidean geometry invalid.

This is what I meant by logic.
That premise A has to be valid to arrive at conclusion B that renders premise A invalid.
Therefore conclusion B MUST be invalid. (As well)

 

A question that may be more relevant to the topic is:

If you take a cubic meter of vacuum-ous space and compare it to another cubic meter of vacuum-ous space do we have two cubic volumes or only one cubic volume of vacuum-ous space that takes up both cubic volumes?

It may appear to be a trick question but I assure you it isn't.

 

The answer to your question very much depends on whether the composition of that cubic meter of vacuum-ous space is comprised of quantum fields, mostly energy, matter, or matter + energy, or a combination of all of the above. This is the reason this thought experiment has been constructed in this way.

This is no small question. Photons have no mass and are composed of only energy, but the Higgs boson, on which the entire SM is based, has mass and must interact with matter at velocities less than the speed of light. Being a boson, it may occupy the same space as another boson or even a fermion at the 'same time', and you now understand exactly why that specification is important and from whence it derives. The interaction of Higgs with matter is a much stronger force than that of a photon, because it imparts mass both to itself and to certain other atomic particles: electrons, quarks, W and Z bosons, and all associated antiparticles including mesons and tetraquarks. Gravitational interaction on our scale is many orders of magnitude greater than the interactions of photons with matter, isn't it? In a BH, it even overwhelms the ability for photons to remain unbound. Yet the SM can't predict what GR does (the equivalence principle) mainly because the variable for time has been replaced with probabilities, in order to eliminate certain infinities. If that doesn't bother you, perhaps it should. It is time that is fundamental to quantum fields, energy and matter. Not space. The Higgs mechanism, in common with photons, has no need of Euclidean space. Only matter that is at rest with respect to one of those quantum fields does.

We haven't gotten into the mechanics of the relativistic quantum fields yet. They are both just as real as is matter and energy, AND they are symmetric in exactly the same way that relativity appears to be, starting with the idea that if a quantum field is in motion or at rest, it must be relative to something else.

 

Well he hated that conclusion but he could not deny it...In my opinion I believe he was so in love with his work he overlooked that the fact that the force of gravity was incongruent with the rest of the forces not beacuse his work was wrong but beacuse everyone always underestimates gravity.

 

Here's a nice surprise, in case you missed it:

http://phys.org/news/2014-12-quantum-physics-complicated.html

Wave-particle duality is simply a restatement of the uncertainty principle. Gotta love that. Stay tuned. It will get simpler still.

 

Hee hee your response reminds me of the notion that :

"The most painful thing for a artistic painter is a blank canvas."

I ask a question regards a cubic meter of vacuum-ous space and your response is to fill it with models and ideas and concepts. Now ain't that just typical of how the mind works ( chuckle )

maybe we should amend the earlier notion to read:

"The most painful thing for a theoretical physicist is a cubic meter of vacuum-ous (empty) space"

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Welcome to sciforums!
In what way do you think AE underestimated gravity?

 

interesting link!

 

Experiment has ALREADY shown, a cubic meter of vacuu-ous space is nothing of the sort. Virtual particle pairs wink in and out of existence there continuously. This is the ONLY crack in the door that allows me to posit two quantum fields, based on the ideas of Special Relativity alone. What follows are simply consequences of that idea. Fewer assumptions are blessed. Fewer still, doubly so. A completely empty vacuum is something that possesses neither time nor space that has any real meaning.

The father of game theory and the inspiration for the book and film "A Beautiful Mind", and his wife evidently perished in a Memorial Day weekend accident involving a taxi cab in New Jersey. Even though schizophrenic, he managed somehow to work with his disability to produce Nobel Prize winning work in mathematics which was a breakthrough all of us can appreciate. Rest easy, Nash.

 

Well said!

 

Thanks will get back when time permits am not saying anything against Einstein he just had a problem with the inconsistencies as you stated lead him to assume the conclusion of incompleteness.