Causal versus Chronological order.

[Y]

The RoS demonstrates how a chronological order of events depends on the motion and position of an observer. The order of percieved events can even reverse, depending on the relative motion and position of observers. The RoS correctly shows that there is no absolute or privelledged position for the simultaneity of events.

However, relativity maintains that a causal ordering of events is the same in all frames.

To most people, sorting out the difference between the two will be difficult.

The reason I bring this topic up again, is that recently I've noticed a change in popularised science. This change represents a moving away from chronological prediction in favor of 'causological' prediction. A brilliant documentary I recently watched called Aftermath, showed a causal ordering of events, that were predicted to occur after

A.. The human population reached a certain figure, 14 billion or something

and

B... If we continued to maintain our lifestyles burning fossil fuels at the rate we do.

The chronological prediction generally says something like ..

This will happen in this amount of time according to this clock..

The causal prediction seems much more logical.

If this happens then this may happen, which will cause this to happen, and something will happen afyer that in turn.. etc.

Any hope for science to continue easing up on the chronology and show us truly cause and effectual prefictions ? I hope so. This is where the most useful predictions for climate change modelling seem to be comming from, and it seems to have less to do with time, and more to do with causality.

-y

[Y]

Claiming that something will happen, as just a matter of time, always seems to have either a sense of fatality about it, or a sense of delusional optimism.

-y

[Sam Wormley]

The RoS demonstrates how a chronological order of events depends on the motion *and position* of an observer.

It is true that the chronological order of events is observer
dependent--hence the relativity of simultaneity in observations
relativistic and not.

The Street Lamp Problem

http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/relativity/practice/problem02.html
Loading Image...
The Street Lamp Problem
5 street lamps A, B, C, D, and E are located on a straight line along
the x axis equal distance apart as shown in the figure. They turn on
at times tA, tB, tC, tD, and tE, respectively, in the frame at rest
relative to the ground. This is indicated in the space-time diagram
above the figure.
What is the order in which the lamps turn on in this frame?
What is the order in which the light of the lamps reach the observer
at x=0?
A car is moving at constant velocity relative to the ground. At
t'=t=0, it is at x'=x=0. The space and time axes in the moving frame
of the car are tilted with respect to those of the rest frame as
shown in the space-time diagram. What is the order in which the lamps
turn on in this frame?
What is the order in which the light from the lamps reach the
observer riding the car?
Where is the car when the light from street lamp D reaches it?

[x***@comcast.net]

Post by Sam Wormley

The RoS demonstrates how a chronological order of events depends on the motion *and position* of an observer.

It is true that the chronological order of events is observer
dependent--hence the relativity of simultaneity in observations
relativistic and not.
The Street Lamp Problem

http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/relativity/practice/problem02.html
http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/relativity/practice/street_lamps.gif
The Street Lamp Problem
5 street lamps A, B, C, D, and E are located on a straight line along
the x axis equal distance apart as shown in the figure. They turn on
at times tA, tB, tC, tD, and tE, respectively, in the frame at rest
relative to the ground. This is indicated in the space-time diagram
above the figure.
What is the order in which the lamps turn on in this frame?
What is the order in which the light of the lamps reach the observer
at x=0?
A car is moving at constant velocity relative to the ground. At
t'=t=0, it is at x'=x=0. The space and time axes in the moving frame
of the car are tilted with respect to those of the rest frame as
shown in the space-time diagram. What is the order in which the lamps
turn on in this frame?
What is the order in which the light from the lamps reach the
observer riding the car?
Where is the car when the light from street lamp D reaches it?

xxein: Geez Sam. Couldn't you find or make up a better example? That is not even complete enough for a curious novice.

[Sam Wormley]

Post by x***@comcast.net
xxein: Geez Sam. Couldn't you find or make up a better example?
That is not even complete enough for a curious novice.

How so?

The Street Lamp Problem

Post by x***@comcast.net
http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/relativity/practice/problem02.html
http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/relativity/practice/street_lamps.gif
The Street Lamp Problem
5 street lamps A, B, C, D, and E are located on a straight line along
the x axis equal distance apart as shown in the figure. They turn on
at times tA, tB, tC, tD, and tE, respectively, in the frame at rest
relative to the ground. This is indicated in the space-time diagram
above the figure.
What is the order in which the lamps turn on in this frame?
What is the order in which the light of the lamps reach the observer
at x=0?
A car is moving at constant velocity relative to the ground. At
t'=t=0, it is at x'=x=0. The space and time axes in the moving frame
of the car are tilted with respect to those of the rest frame as
shown in the space-time diagram. What is the order in which the lamps
turn on in this frame?
What is the order in which the light from the lamps reach the
observer riding the car?
Where is the car when the light from street lamp D reaches it?

[h***@yahoo.com]

Post by Y
A brilliant documentary I recently watched called Aftermath, showed a causal
ordering of events, that were predicted to occur after A.. The human
population reached a certain figure, 14 billion or something and B... If we
continued to maintain our lifestyles burning fossil fuels at the rate we do.
The chronological prediction generally says something like .. This will
happen in this amount of time according to this clock.. The causal prediction
seems much more logical. If this happens then this may happen, which will
cause this to happen, and something will happen afyer that in turn.. etc.
Any hope for science to continue easing up on the chronology and show us
truly cause and effectual prefictions ?

Hi Y,

I agree; however, chronology is very important, too. Like, WHEN will the
population reach 14 billion? And there are other "ifs" such as development
of other fuel sources.

Post by Y
I hope so. This is where the most useful predictions for climate change
modelling seem to be comming from, and it seems to have less to do with
time, and more to do with causality. -y

Of course, this assumes that CO2 is the cause of climate change and not the
effect. Data I've seen from past epochs indicate that the increase of CO2
levels occurred hundreds of years AFTER the temperature increased.

Gary

[rotchm]

Yes there is a distinction between the words chrono and causal. Unfortunately, this is often not explained clearly and the lay misunderstands.

Consider the set of pairs of events, E.g. E1 and E2.

Just as there are odd and even numbers, there are chronological and causal pairs.(Actually we should say non-causal and causal pairs. The set of non-causal and causal pairs belong to "chronological" pairs)

Some pairs may have an order in one frame and a different order in another frame.

Some pairs may always have the same order in all frames. These pairs are called causal pairs or causal events: From the LT's, dt' = (dt-dxv/c2)g. There exist combinations or relationships of dt and dx such that the sign on each side of the equality remains the same for all v (of a given direction).

[Y]

Rotchm

That is one way I might explain causal and temporal ordering of events to the lay person.

I would also explain that each observer produces time in their own frame of reference, and the references they produce aren't absolutely synchronised. This allows observers to have different chronological orderings.

Causality on the other hand, is fundamental. Events in nature simply can not happen without a cause, nor can be observed to be any other way, and this is why a causal ordering of events is never violated.

The emerging and unfolding events of nature, therefore aren't necessarily motivated by a temporal passage or physical dimension of time. Temporality itself may be nothing more than an observer produced measure of causal happenings set in motion; a metric of references which each observer manufactures, and together may not even agree upon.

More remarkably, this manufacturing of references, which become packets of information we call time, play a role in causality as a consequence of their creation. Seconds are 'events' which are produced in the absence of events even taking place in nature. An electron, which moves around the nucleus of an atom does not often accumulate a number of equally placed events though these are assigned by us in the creation of time. Every subsequent event thus coordinated with the second, here on Earth in our daily lives, reinforces the stubborn illusion that "time" unfolds, causing everything else to unfold. Here on Earth, events seem to unfold to the rhythms of time in our own artificial nature, whereas the remainder of the events in the universe seems to happen in uncoordinated but causally connected motions. This is chronological versus causal ordering.


-y

[Sam Wormley]

Post by Y
Causality on the other hand, is fundamental. Events in nature simply
can not happen without a cause, nor can be observed to be any other
way, and this is why a causal ordering of events is never violated.

Your argument is valid in the world of Newtonian Mechanics, but is
certainly not the case at the scale of the quantum world with makes
up you and me and everything else.

[paparios]

Post by Y
Rotchm
That is one way I might explain causal and temporal ordering of events to the lay person.
I would also explain that each observer produces time in their own frame of reference, and the references they produce aren't absolutely synchronised. This allows observers to have different chronological orderings.
Causality on the other hand, is fundamental. Events in nature simply can not happen without a cause, nor can be observed to be any other way, and this is why a causal ordering of events is never violated.

Nature is clearly more amazing than our limited human knowledge can model. Recent results indicate that this long taken for granted law that "Events in nature simply can not happen without a cause" is not always valid.

Ognyan Oreshkov, Fabio Costa and Caslav Brukner in Nature Communications, Published 2 Oct 2012, write:

"The idea that events obey a definite causal order is deeply rooted in our understanding of the world and at the basis of the very notion of time. But where does causal order come from, and is it a necessary property of nature? Here, we address these questions from the standpoint of quantum mechanics in a new framework for multipartite correlations that does not assume a pre-defined global causal structure but only the validity of quantum mechanics locally. All known situations that respect causal order, including space-like and time-like separated experiments, are captured by this framework in a unified way. Surprisingly, we find correlations that cannot be understood in terms of definite causal order. These correlations violate a ‘causal inequality’ that is satisfied by all space-like and time-like correlations. We further show that in a classical limit causal order always arises, which suggests that space-time may emerge from a more fundamental structure in a quantum-to-classical transition."

Post by Y
The emerging and unfolding events of nature, therefore aren't necessarily motivated by a temporal passage or physical dimension of time. Temporality itself may be nothing more than an observer produced measure of causal happenings set in motion; a metric of references which each observer manufactures, and together may not even agree upon.
More remarkably, this manufacturing of references, which become packets of information we call time, play a role in causality as a consequence of their creation. Seconds are 'events' which are produced in the absence of events even taking place in nature. An electron, which moves around the nucleus of an atom does not often accumulate a number of equally placed events though these are assigned by us in the creation of time. Every subsequent event thus coordinated with the second, here on Earth in our daily lives, reinforces the stubborn illusion that "time" unfolds, causing everything else to unfold. Here on Earth, events seem to unfold to the rhythms of time in our own artificial nature, whereas the remainder of the events in the universe seems to happen in uncoordinated but causally connected motions. This is chronological versus causal ordering.
-y

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "paparios" napisał w wiadomości grup
dyskusyjnych:e101ec38-cad9-4748-b0ed-***@googlegroups.com...

|Nature is clearly more amazing than our limited human knowledge can model.

No. Nature is clearly more amazing than You limited idiot knowledge
can model.
Though, of course, causal order is not the thing thinking man should
rely on.

[Lloyd Buckner]

Post by Maciej Woźniak
|Nature is clearly more amazing than our limited human knowledge can model.
No. Nature is clearly more amazing than You limited idiot knowledge can
model.
Though, of course, causal order is not the thing thinking man should
rely on.

I disagree. Many of the fat rats does the same error. Causality is
fundamental in this Universe. It gives Entropy, the strongest theory known
to mankind.

The Entropy is not to debate. The Evolution and Relativity are.

[Sam Wormley]

Post by Lloyd Buckner
The Entropy is not to debate. The Evolution and Relativity are.

<laughing>

[rotchm]

Post by Y
Rotchm
That is one way I might explain causal and temporal
ordering of events to the lay person.

You may also use the timezone example. A big asteroid hits earth at noon in the Atlantic ocean. To the US east coast citizens it occurred at 9am and to west coast Europeans it occurred at 2pm. Times depend on the observer.

The arrival of the wake however always after the impact, for every observer. Say at 10 am for US and 3 pm for Eu. Anw, you get the idea.

Post by Y
I would also explain that each observer produces time in their
own frame of reference, and the references they produce aren't
absolutely synchronised. This allows observers to have
different chronological orderings.

Yes, similarly as above.

Post by Y
Causality on the other hand, is fundamental.

It would *seem*.

Post by Y
Events in nature simply can not happen without a cause,

So you say. Me, I dont know. The problem is the definition of 'cause'.
But physics uses models. In SR, we defined the concept of 'causality' meaning that the sign of dt' and dt remains the same for all observers. The set of such pairs of events are simply called 'causal' events, whether there is a "physical cause" or not of the events. The SR model does not need, nor use, the concept of 'cause'.

Post by Y
nor can be observed to be any other way,

Currently. Who says in the future that some weird thing will manifest itself?
Nonetheless in SR some pairs of events are causal. If we ever find pars of vents predicted to be causal but are observed as not, then the SR model will be flushed.

[Lord Androcles]

"Y" wrote in message news:7e6e0ee8-3d79-4620-9446-***@googlegroups.com...

The RoS demonstrates how a chronological order of events depends on the
motion and position of an observer. The order of percieved events can even
reverse, depending on the relative motion and position of observers. The RoS
correctly shows that there is no absolute or privelledged position for the
simultaneity of events.

However, relativity maintains that a causal ordering of events is the same
in all frames.

To most people, sorting out the difference between the two will be
difficult.

The reason I bring this topic up again, is that recently I've noticed a
change in popularised science. This change represents a moving away from
chronological prediction in favor of 'causological' prediction. A brilliant
documentary I recently watched called Aftermath, showed a causal ordering of
events, that were predicted to occur after

A.. The human population reached a certain figure, 14 billion or something

and

B... If we continued to maintain our lifestyles burning fossil fuels at the
rate we do.

The chronological prediction generally says something like ..

This will happen in this amount of time according to this clock..

The causal prediction seems much more logical.

If this happens then this may happen, which will cause this to happen, and
something will happen afyer that in turn.. etc.

Any hope for science to continue easing up on the chronology and show us
truly cause and effectual prefictions ? I hope so. This is where the most
useful predictions for climate change modelling seem to be comming from, and
it seems to have less to do with time, and more to do with causality.

-y
===================================================
The population will reach 14 billion by 2045 IF things continue as the are.
This is based on it doubling every 33 years.
The purpose of such a statement is to encourage people to NOT let things
continue the way they are. Every couple should have two children and
no more. In reality they can't stop fucking and can only see their own
selfish wants; famine and war will stop the human locusts spreading over
the entire edible planet and killing each other; things will not continue as
they are and the population will not reach 14 billion.

-- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

[l***@gmail.com]

Post by Y
The order of percieved events can even reverse,
depending on the relative motion and position of observers.

I don't agree.

The fundamental base of the causal principle is to order events in
causes and effects:
It dependends on the observer if he will see a cause and an effect
simultaniously or one after another.

A cause precedes always its effect:
If one observer notices event 1 before event 2 no other observer can see
event 2 before event 1 - Simultaneity of cause and effect is the
observable maximum in the GR.

The relativity of time saves the principle of causality, it doesn't
contradicts it.

liL

[rotchm]

Post by l***@gmail.com

Post by Y
The order of percieved events can even reverse,
depending on the relative motion and position of observers.

I don't agree.

I think you misunderstand the meaning of the expressions used.

SR, and experimentally proven, that the order of events can reverse.

Post by l***@gmail.com
The fundamental base of the causal principle is to order events in

Dont mix up the notions of 'causal events' vs. 'order of events'. These expressions mean completely different things.
Sort of. You need to clearly define 'cause'. Your use of the word 'cause' does not have the same meaning as in the expression 'causal events'. Then again, 'cause' and 'causal' are different words.

Post by l***@gmail.com
If one observer notices event 1 before event 2 no other observer can see
event 2 before event 1 -

FALSE. And actual exp's prove you wrong.

[l***@gmail.com]

Post by rotchm

Post by l***@gmail.com

Post by Y
The order of percieved events can even reverse,
depending on the relative motion and position of observers.

I don't agree.

I think you misunderstand the meaning of the expressions used.
SR, and experimentally proven, that the order of events can reverse.

Post by l***@gmail.com
The fundamental base of the causal principle is to order events in

Dont mix up the notions of 'causal events' vs. 'order of events'. These expressions mean completely different things.
Sort of. You need to clearly define 'cause'. Your use of the word 'cause' does not have the same meaning as in the
expression 'causal events'. Then again, 'cause' and 'causal' are different words.

Sorry for my my bad english.

Post by rotchm
Causality is the relation between an event (the cause) and a second
event (the effect), where the second event is understood as a
consequence of the first.

Post by l***@gmail.com
If one observer notices event 1 before event 2 no other observer can see
event 2 before event 1 -

FALSE. And actual exp's prove you wrong.

I meant it in sense of event 1 as the cause (for event 2) and event 2 as
the effect (of event 1) - but I haven't noticed this dependency:
So you're right.

liL

[rotchm]

Post by l***@gmail.com

Post by rotchm
Causality is the relation between an event (the cause) and a second
event (the effect), where the second event is understood as a
consequence of the first.

Also see causality_(physics)
And 'cause'.

Post by l***@gmail.com
So you're right.

Also, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity#Causality_and_prohibition_of_motion_faster_than_light

"For example, if A was the cause, and C the effect, then there would be frames of reference in which the effect preceded the cause. Although this in itself won't give rise to a paradox,..."

In SR, 'causal' is often synonym of 'light-like', or
dt is the same for all observers.

[l***@gmail.com]

Post by rotchm

Post by l***@gmail.com

Post by rotchm
Causality is the relation between an event (the cause) and a second
event (the effect), where the second event is understood as a
consequence of the first.

Also see causality_(physics)
And 'cause'.

Post by l***@gmail.com
So you're right.

Also, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity#Causality_and_prohibition_of_motion_faster_than_light
"For example, if A was the cause, and C the effect, then there would be frames
of reference in which the effect preceded the cause.
Although this in itself won't give rise to a paradox,..."
In SR, 'causal' is often synonym of 'light-like', or
dt is the same for all observers.

Yes, we've got a speed limit for all informations.

Post by rotchm
The relativity of time saves the principle of causality, it doesn't
contradicts it.

liL

[Sam Wormley]

Post by l***@gmail.com

Post by Y
The order of percieved events can even reverse,
depending on the relative motion and position of observers.

I don't agree.
Loading Image...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity

The Street Lamp Problem and the Relativity of Simultaneity

Post by l***@gmail.com
http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/relativity/practice/problem02.html
http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/relativity/practice/street_lamps.gif
The Street Lamp Problem
5 street lamps A, B, C, D, and E are located on a straight line along
the x axis equal distance apart as shown in the figure. They turn on
at times tA, tB, tC, tD, and tE, respectively, in the frame at rest
relative to the ground. This is indicated in the space-time diagram
above the figure.
What is the order in which the lamps turn on in this frame?
What is the order in which the light of the lamps reach the observer
at x=0?
A car is moving at constant velocity relative to the ground. At
t'=t=0, it is at x'=x=0. The space and time axes in the moving frame
of the car are tilted with respect to those of the rest frame as
shown in the space-time diagram. What is the order in which the lamps
turn on in this frame?
What is the order in which the light from the lamps reach the
observer riding the car?
Where is the car when the light from street lamp D reaches it?

[l***@gmail.com]

Post by Sam Wormley

Post by l***@gmail.com

Post by Y
The order of percieved events can even reverse,
depending on the relative motion and position of observers.

I don't agree.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Relativity_of_Simultaneity_Animation.gif
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity

The Street Lamp Problem and the Relativity of Simultaneity

Post by l***@gmail.com
http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/relativity/practice/problem02.html
http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/relativity/practice/street_lamps.gif
The Street Lamp Problem
5 street lamps A, B, C, D, and E are located on a straight line along
the x axis equal distance apart as shown in the figure. They turn on
at times tA, tB, tC, tD, and tE, respectively, in the frame at rest
relative to the ground. This is indicated in the space-time diagram
above the figure.
What is the order in which the lamps turn on in this frame?
What is the order in which the light of the lamps reach the observer
at x=0?
A car is moving at constant velocity relative to the ground. At
t'=t=0, it is at x'=x=0. The space and time axes in the moving frame
of the car are tilted with respect to those of the rest frame as
shown in the space-time diagram. What is the order in which the lamps
turn on in this frame?
What is the order in which the light from the lamps reach the
observer riding the car?
Where is the car when the light from street lamp D reaches it?

In sense auf causality the events "turn on lamps A-E" are effects of the
event "(aproximated) simoultaniously power switch on" as the cause for all.

I didn't agree with the statement

Post by Sam Wormley
The order of percieved events can even reverse

and don't do it right now:

Two observers can percieve events in a different order if these events
are causal independant from each other - No question (as f.e. in your
street lamp example).

But the order of causal dependently events can't be reverse.
That's what I've tried to say: I'm sorry for eventually misunderstandings.

liL

[Sam Wormley]

Post by l***@gmail.com

Post by Sam Wormley

Post by l***@gmail.com

Post by Y
The order of percieved events can even reverse,
depending on the relative motion and position of observers.

I don't agree.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Relativity_of_Simultaneity_Animation.gif
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity

The Street Lamp Problem and the Relativity of Simultaneity

Post by l***@gmail.com
http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/relativity/practice/problem02.html
http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/relativity/practice/street_lamps.gif
The Street Lamp Problem
5 street lamps A, B, C, D, and E are located on a straight line along
the x axis equal distance apart as shown in the figure. They turn on
at times tA, tB, tC, tD, and tE, respectively, in the frame at rest
relative to the ground. This is indicated in the space-time diagram
above the figure.
What is the order in which the lamps turn on in this frame?
What is the order in which the light of the lamps reach the observer
at x=0?
A car is moving at constant velocity relative to the ground. At
t'=t=0, it is at x'=x=0. The space and time axes in the moving frame
of the car are tilted with respect to those of the rest frame as
shown in the space-time diagram. What is the order in which the lamps
turn on in this frame?
What is the order in which the light from the lamps reach the
observer riding the car?
Where is the car when the light from street lamp D reaches it?

In sense auf causality the events "turn on lamps A-E" are effects of the
event "(aproximated) simoultaniously power switch on" as the cause for all.
I didn't agree with the statement

Post by Sam Wormley
The order of percieved events can even reverse

Two observers can percieve events in a different order if these events
are causal independant from each other - No question (as f.e. in your
street lamp example).
But the order of causal dependently events can't be reverse.
That's what I've tried to say: I'm sorry for eventually misunderstandings.
liL

Curious -- Independent of the cause and timing that turned on the
street lamps in the problem, where you able to get the correct
answer for each of the two observers?

[l***@gmail.com]

Post by Sam Wormley
Curious -- Independent of the cause and timing that turned on the
street lamps in the problem, where you able to get the correct
answer for each of the two observers?

No, sorry, I'm not.

Post by Sam Wormley
5 street lamps A, B, C, D, and E are located on a straight line
along the x axis equal distance apart as shown in the figure.

Let the distance be 1 ly.

Post by Sam Wormley
They turn on at times tA, tB, tC, tD, and tE, respectively, in
the frame at rest relative to the ground. This is indicated in
the space-time diagram above the figure.

The flash up of every single lamp depends only on its individual switch
on, not on the flash up of any other lamp.

Where is the central power switch for the lamps positioned in the diagram?

liL

[Sam Wormley]

Post by l***@gmail.com
Where is the central power switch for the lamps positioned in the diagram?

This kind of question only serves to divert your attention for doing
the problem -- If you must know, the street lamps are on timers, and
after many years the timers are no longer in sync.

Please try again:

The Street Lamp Problem and the Relativity of Simultaneity

Post by l***@gmail.com
http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/relativity/practice/problem02.html
http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/relativity/practice/street_lamps.gif
The Street Lamp Problem
5 street lamps A, B, C, D, and E are located on a straight line along
the x axis equal distance apart as shown in the figure. They turn on
at times tA, tB, tC, tD, and tE, respectively, in the frame at rest
relative to the ground. This is indicated in the space-time diagram
above the figure.
What is the order in which the lamps turn on in this frame?
What is the order in which the light of the lamps reach the observer
at x=0?
A car is moving at constant velocity relative to the ground. At
t'=t=0, it is at x'=x=0. The space and time axes in the moving frame
of the car are tilted with respect to those of the rest frame as
shown in the space-time diagram. What is the order in which the lamps
turn on in this frame?
What is the order in which the light from the lamps reach the
observer riding the car?
Where is the car when the light from street lamp D reaches it?

[l***@gmail.com]

o.k. - Now I see.

Post by Sam Wormley
The Street Lamp Problem
5 street lamps A, B, C, D, and E are located on a straight line along
the x axis equal distance apart as shown in the figure.
The street lamps are on timers, and after many years the timers are
no longer in sync.

So their switching on-mechanism is independent from each other
(That's unusual for street lamps - Thank you for this clue).

Post by Sam Wormley
They turn on at times tA, tB, tC, tD, and tE, respectively, in the
frame at rest relative to the ground. This is indicated in the
space-time diagram above the figure.
What is the order in which the lamps turn on in this frame?

Now I can follow why a special observer will see them turning on in the
order as shown in the diagram:
1. A and C simultaniously
2. E
3. D
4. B

I only miss (the answer) to the question where the the first observer

Post by Sam Wormley
They turn on at times tA, tB, tC, tD, and tE, respectively, in the
frame at rest relative to the ground.

Not only the timers, also his relatively position to all the lamps
influences his observered order of turning on.

liL

[Sam Wormley]

Post by l***@gmail.com
o.k. - Now I see.

Post by Sam Wormley
The Street Lamp Problem
5 street lamps A, B, C, D, and E are located on a straight line along
the x axis equal distance apart as shown in the figure.
The street lamps are on timers, and after many years the timers are
no longer in sync.

So their switching on-mechanism is independent from each other
(That's unusual for street lamps - Thank you for this clue).

Post by Sam Wormley
They turn on at times tA, tB, tC, tD, and tE, respectively, in the
frame at rest relative to the ground. This is indicated in the
space-time diagram above the figure.
What is the order in which the lamps turn on in this frame?

Now I can follow why a special observer will see them turning on in the
1. A and C simultaniously
2. E
3. D
4. B
I only miss (the answer) to the question where the the first observer

Post by Sam Wormley
They turn on at times tA, tB, tC, tD, and tE, respectively, in the
frame at rest relative to the ground.

Not only the timers, also his relatively position to all the lamps
influences his observered order of turning on.
liL

Exactly. Order depend on both position and velocity.

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "Sam Wormley" napisał w wiadomości grup
dyskusyjnych:***@giganews.com...


| Exactly. Order depend on both position and velocity.

Though, as even some smarter relativits agree, there is
no proof for this shit, nobody have to believe it.

[Sam Wormley]

Post by Maciej Woźniak
Though, as even some smarter relativits agree, there is
no proof for this shit, nobody have to believe it.

Please try not to be so ignorant, Maciej. The Relativity of
Simultaneity -- Moon Landing from the Moon.

Post by Maciej Woźniak
http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/RelativityOfSimultaneity/

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "Sam Wormley" napisał w wiadomości grup

Post by Maciej Woźniak
Though, as even some smarter relativits agree, there is
no proof for this shit, nobody have to believe it.

Please try not to be so ignorant, Maciej. The Relativity of
Simultaneity -- Moon Landing from the Moon.

Post by Maciej Woźniak
http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/RelativityOfSimultaneity/

Yeah, Sam, I know relativists said that.

[Sam Wormley]

Post by Maciej Woźniak
Użytkownik "Sam Wormley" napisał w wiadomości grup

Post by Maciej Woźniak
Though, as even some smarter relativits agree, there is
no proof for this shit, nobody have to believe it.

Please try not to be so ignorant, Maciej. The Relativity of
Simultaneity -- Moon Landing from the Moon.

Post by Maciej Woźniak
http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/RelativityOfSimultaneity/

Yeah, Sam, I know relativists said that.

Not only did they said that, but it actually happened. It is a matter
of historical record.

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "Sam Wormley" napisał w wiadomości grup

Post by Maciej Woźniak
Użytkownik "Sam Wormley" napisał w wiadomości grup

Post by Maciej Woźniak
Though, as even some smarter relativits agree, there is
no proof for this shit, nobody have to believe it.

Please try not to be so ignorant, Maciej. The Relativity of
Simultaneity -- Moon Landing from the Moon.

Post by Maciej Woźniak
http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/RelativityOfSimultaneity/

Yeah, Sam, I know relativists said that.

| Not only did they said that, but it actually happened. It is a matter
| of historical record.

Yes, it surely happened. Armstrong landed on Moon and send
a message. I'm not denying it.

[Sam Wormley]

Post by Maciej Woźniak
Yes, it surely happened. Armstrong landed on Moon and send
a message. I'm not denying it.

Cool!

[Lloyd Buckner]

Yes, it surely happened. Armstrong landed on Moon and send a message.
I'm not denying it.

Cool!

That is not cool. Cool was Wernher Von Braun, the ardent nazi piece of
shit, sending porno outer space. The space exploration era began by
sending porno deep in space, what a maroon. And that Moon Landing, forget
it. There are no proofs. You can't expect a proof from an ardent nazi,
they are gays.

[Odd Bodkin]

Post by Maciej Woźniak
Though, as even some smarter relativits agree, there is
no proof for this shit, nobody have to believe it.

Why are you looking for proofs in science, if I might ask?

[Lloyd Buckner]

Post by Odd Bodkin

Though, as even some smarter relativits agree, there is no proof for
this shit, nobody have to believe it.

Why are you looking for proofs in science, if I might ask?

Since you can trust in them, I guess.

[Tom Roberts]

Post by Y
The RoS demonstrates how a chronological order of events depends on the
motion and position of an observer. The order of percieved events can even
reverse, depending on the relative motion and position of observers. The RoS
correctly shows that there is no absolute or privelledged position for the
simultaneity of events.

That is VERY poorly stated. Any pair of events that can be PERCEIVED by a given
observer, will be PERCEIVED by any other observer to occur in the same order.
Because perception implies that both events are timelike separated from the
observer's perception events, and timelike-separated events are well ordered.

But yes, spacelike-separated events have no definite order, and different
observers can use assistants with synchronized clocks to measure their times,
and those times can occur in different order for different sets of observer and
assistants. This, of course, comes down to how the assistants' clocks are
synchronized....

Post by Y
However, relativity maintains that a causal ordering of events is the same in all frames.

Yes, in the sense that if event A can affect event B, then event A is inside the
past lightcone of B, and all observers will agree.

Causality is not chronology.

Post by Y
Any hope for science to continue easing up on the chronology and show us
truly cause and effectual prefictions ?

Probably not, because "causality" is so poorly defined. In general, it simply is
not possible to say what "caused" any specific happening. Whole treatises have
been written that attempt to say what "caused" a match to be lit (with "causes"
ranging from atomic physics to a man's desire for heat). Obviously human desires
are far afield from physics, but "causality" includes all that....

Note also that no modern fundamental theory of physics has anything like
"causality". These theories describe 100% correlations, not "causes". And
Quantum theories also include "un-caused" actions that are purely random.


Tom Roberts

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup

Post by Y
However, relativity maintains that a causal ordering of events is the same
in
all frames.

|Yes, in the sense that if event A can affect event B, then event A is
inside the
|past lightcone of B, and all observers will agree.

According to Your second beloved theory entangled states
have destroyed this dependancy.
But, of course, You'd have to do some thinking to notice that.

[Tom Roberts]

Post by Maciej Woźniak
Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup
|Yes, in the sense that if event A can affect event B, then event A is inside the
|past lightcone of B, and all observers will agree.
According to Your second beloved theory entangled states
have destroyed this dependancy.

Nope.

Post by Maciej Woźniak
But, of course, You'd have to do some thinking to notice that.

It is YOU who must think. And YOU who must learn what entanglement ACTUALLY means.


Tom Roberts

[John Gogo]

Post by Tom Roberts

Post by Maciej Woźniak
Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup
|Yes, in the sense that if event A can affect event B, then event A is inside the
|past lightcone of B, and all observers will agree.
According to Your second beloved theory entangled states
have destroyed this dependancy.

Nope.

Post by Maciej Woźniak
But, of course, You'd have to do some thinking to notice that.

It is YOU who must think. And YOU who must learn what entanglement ACTUALLY means.
Tom Roberts

If I was to attempt to explain this to a 10 year old- I would be amiss as to explain to him any difference between cause and effect vs. chronological order- when they mean the same thing.

[Sam Wormley]

Post by John Gogo
I would be amiss as to explain to him any difference between cause and effect vs. chronological order- when they mean the same thing.

No!

Post by John Gogo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Relativity_of_Simultaneity_Animation.gif
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity

The Street Lamp Problem and the Relativity of Simultaneity

Post by John Gogo
http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/relativity/practice/problem02.html
http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/relativity/practice/street_lamps.gif
The Street Lamp Problem
5 street lamps A, B, C, D, and E are located on a straight line along
the x axis equal distance apart as shown in the figure. They turn on
at times tA, tB, tC, tD, and tE, respectively, in the frame at rest
relative to the ground. This is indicated in the space-time diagram
above the figure.
What is the order in which the lamps turn on in this frame?
What is the order in which the light of the lamps reach the observer
at x=0?
A car is moving at constant velocity relative to the ground. At
t'=t=0, it is at x'=x=0. The space and time axes in the moving frame
of the car are tilted with respect to those of the rest frame as
shown in the space-time diagram. What is the order in which the lamps
turn on in this frame?
What is the order in which the light from the lamps reach the
observer riding the car?
Where is the car when the light from street lamp D reaches it?

[John Gogo]

Post by Sam Wormley

Post by John Gogo
I would be amiss as to explain to him any difference between cause and effect vs. chronological order- when they mean the same thing.

No!

Post by John Gogo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Relativity_of_Simultaneity_Animation.gif
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity

The Street Lamp Problem and the Relativity of Simultaneity

Post by John Gogo
http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/relativity/practice/problem02.html
http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/relativity/practice/street_lamps.gif
The Street Lamp Problem
5 street lamps A, B, C, D, and E are located on a straight line along
the x axis equal distance apart as shown in the figure. They turn on
at times tA, tB, tC, tD, and tE, respectively, in the frame at rest
relative to the ground. This is indicated in the space-time diagram
above the figure.
What is the order in which the lamps turn on in this frame?
What is the order in which the light of the lamps reach the observer
at x=0?
A car is moving at constant velocity relative to the ground. At
t'=t=0, it is at x'=x=0. The space and time axes in the moving frame
of the car are tilted with respect to those of the rest frame as
shown in the space-time diagram. What is the order in which the lamps
turn on in this frame?
What is the order in which the light from the lamps reach the
observer riding the car?
Where is the car when the light from street lamp D reaches it?

Are you sure that this is not the point where you permanently brain-wash a 10 year old?

[John Gogo]

Post by John Gogo

Post by Sam Wormley

Post by John Gogo
I would be amiss as to explain to him any difference between cause and effect vs. chronological order- when they mean the same thing.

No!

Post by John Gogo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Relativity_of_Simultaneity_Animation.gif
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity

The Street Lamp Problem and the Relativity of Simultaneity

Post by John Gogo
http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/relativity/practice/problem02.html
http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/relativity/practice/street_lamps.gif
The Street Lamp Problem
5 street lamps A, B, C, D, and E are located on a straight line along
the x axis equal distance apart as shown in the figure. They turn on
at times tA, tB, tC, tD, and tE, respectively, in the frame at rest
relative to the ground. This is indicated in the space-time diagram
above the figure.
What is the order in which the lamps turn on in this frame?
What is the order in which the light of the lamps reach the observer
at x=0?
A car is moving at constant velocity relative to the ground. At
t'=t=0, it is at x'=x=0. The space and time axes in the moving frame
of the car are tilted with respect to those of the rest frame as
shown in the space-time diagram. What is the order in which the lamps
turn on in this frame?
What is the order in which the light from the lamps reach the
observer riding the car?
Where is the car when the light from street lamp D reaches it?

Are you sure that this is not the point where you permanently brain-wash a 10 year old?

This is a thought experiment, a gedankin and has no proof or real experimentation. We assume all the math and information here to be transported at c. Here is where I think our logic is flawed: we assume the absolute value c in all light experiments- therefore we have the right to assume that all points, lights, clocks, events, and gedankins operate in a way that measures this speed- or delay. Finally, we draw conclusions which are not common sensical like time travel into the past.

[Sam Wormley]

Post by John Gogo
This is a thought experiment, a gedankin and has no proof or real
experimentation. We assume all the math and information here to be
transported at c.

That's right light (information) propagates at c in all inertial
frames of reference. Empirically so.

Can you get the right answers doing the problem, John?

The Street Lamp Problem and the Relativity of Simultaneity

Post by John Gogo
http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/relativity/practice/problem02.html
http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/relativity/practice/street_lamps.gif

[John Gogo]

Post by Sam Wormley

Post by John Gogo
This is a thought experiment, a gedankin and has no proof or real
experimentation. We assume all the math and information here to be
transported at c.

That's right light (information) propagates at c in all inertial
frames of reference. Empirically so.
Can you get the right answers doing the problem, John?
The Street Lamp Problem and the Relativity of Simultaneity

Post by John Gogo
http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/relativity/practice/problem02.html
http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/relativity/practice/street_lamps.gif

Probably if I applied myself to the task. But I would rather talk about other factors that I notice along the way. Like there is only 1/2 of the story being told here. Do you ever feel that way- that there is much more out there than we currently know?

[John Gogo]

Post by John Gogo

Post by Sam Wormley

Post by John Gogo
This is a thought experiment, a gedankin and has no proof or real
experimentation. We assume all the math and information here to be
transported at c.

That's right light (information) propagates at c in all inertial
frames of reference. Empirically so.
Can you get the right answers doing the problem, John?
The Street Lamp Problem and the Relativity of Simultaneity

Post by John Gogo
http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/relativity/practice/problem02.html
http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/relativity/practice/street_lamps.gif

Probably if I applied myself to the task. But I would rather talk about other factors that I notice along the way. Like there is only 1/2 of the story being told here. Do you ever feel that way- that there is much more out there than we currently know?

For instance, the opposite of terms- synonyms and antonyms in physics. Absolute vs. relative- today we seem convicted to eliminate any notion of the opposite of relative. Instead, if we are ever to realize that relative and absolute must be used like a yin and yang of sorts- in order to advance science?

[John Gogo]

Post by John Gogo

Post by John Gogo

Post by Sam Wormley

Post by John Gogo
This is a thought experiment, a gedankin and has no proof or real
experimentation. We assume all the math and information here to be
transported at c.

That's right light (information) propagates at c in all inertial
frames of reference. Empirically so.
Can you get the right answers doing the problem, John?
The Street Lamp Problem and the Relativity of Simultaneity

Post by John Gogo
http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/relativity/practice/problem02.html
http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/relativity/practice/street_lamps.gif

Probably if I applied myself to the task. But I would rather talk about other factors that I notice along the way. Like there is only 1/2 of the story being told here. Do you ever feel that way- that there is much more out there than we currently know?

For instance, the opposite of terms- synonyms and antonyms in physics. Absolute vs. relative- today we seem convicted to eliminate any notion of the opposite of relative. Instead, if we are ever to realize that relative and absolute must be used like a yin and yang of sorts- in order to advance science?

Why do we have to be so extreme one way or the other?

[John Gogo]

Post by John Gogo

Post by John Gogo

Post by John Gogo

Post by Sam Wormley

Post by John Gogo
This is a thought experiment, a gedankin and has no proof or real
experimentation. We assume all the math and information here to be
transported at c.

That's right light (information) propagates at c in all inertial
frames of reference. Empirically so.
Can you get the right answers doing the problem, John?
The Street Lamp Problem and the Relativity of Simultaneity

Post by John Gogo
http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/relativity/practice/problem02.html
http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/relativity/practice/street_lamps.gif

Probably if I applied myself to the task. But I would rather talk about other factors that I notice along the way. Like there is only 1/2 of the story being told here. Do you ever feel that way- that there is much more out there than we currently know?

For instance, the opposite of terms- synonyms and antonyms in physics. Absolute vs. relative- today we seem convicted to eliminate any notion of the opposite of relative. Instead, if we are ever to realize that relative and absolute must be used like a yin and yang of sorts- in order to advance science?

Why do we have to be so extreme one way or the other?

For instance, a reflecting mirror which is impinged upon and responsible for the reflection of a light experiment- a 180 degree turn in a two-way, one-clock measure- is calculated to have no time or be infinite. And we are supposed to measure the isotropy of light this way? What has happened to our operational definitions when it comes the the reflection of light timewise?

[Sam Wormley]

Post by John Gogo

Post by Sam Wormley
The Street Lamp Problem and the Relativity of Simultaneity

http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/relativity/practice/problem02.html
http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/relativity/practice/street_lamps.gif

Probably if I applied myself to the task.

Well, it is pretty easy and illustrates a point about the relativity
of simultaneity, that you would appreciate, John.

[l***@gmail.com]

If I was to attempt to explain this to a 10 year old -
I would be amiss as to explain to him any difference between
cause and effect vs. chronological order- when they mean
the same thing.

A long time ago I've thought over this example:

We have a linear system of equations - Very complex over all, but
linear. We're going to feed the formula into our computer.

We type the input values, press 'Return' and wait for the result:
All this operations needs time.

But if we look at the (linear) algorithms we will see that the final
result of our mathematical operations is instantaniously fixed at that
moment we've selected the input values:
causality itself don't need any time.

Perhaps it is helpul.

liL


P.S.:
The result of 2 minus 3 plus 1 is the same as 1 plus 2 minus 3 - Two
observers can do/see this operation in a different order without any
effect on the result.
But the result of (2 multiplied by 3) plus 1 is not the same as (1 plus
2) multiplied by 3 - This operation two observers can't do/see in a
different order without any effect on the result.

[Y]

I fail to see how entangled states violate causality in any way. One misunderstanding which Roberts makes, is that nothing needs to move faster than c for entanglement to cause action at a distance.

Thanks for your feedback Roberts. What you say is mostly correct, but I'm simply paraphrasing the RoS in a very simplistic way for those who have difficulty understanding it. The description of the RoS using the word "perception" is a bit sloppy.

The point I'm making is that a causal order; i.e Event A causes event B is not the same as a chronological order. The two notions are often conflated. You say that causality is poorly defined, but I don't think so. Nor do I think that causality has ANYTHING whatsoever to do with a light cone.

The RoS itself seems to settle the common misunderstanding that events unfold in a physical dimension of time. If time were a physical thing in nature CAUSING events to unfold, no reversing of chronology would be possible (which IS possible). If time itself is not necessarily part of causality, then it is not necessarily a part of all physical interactions.

The additional point I was making, was that in a world where time is setup as part of a causal ordering of events, the stubborn illusion of temporal processes are reinforced. What this means, is in the broader natural context, including the nature of human artificiality, time can indeed be a part of causality..

A bus schedule is a good example of this reality.

-y

[Tom Roberts]

Post by Y
I fail to see how entangled states violate causality in any way. One
misunderstanding which Roberts makes, is that nothing needs to move faster
than c for entanglement to cause action at a distance.

That is apparently a bit garbled. But in any case, quantum entanglement is a
CORRELATION. Correlation is not causation.

In any EPR-type experiment, NOTHING travels between the two detection events,
and there certainly is no "action at a distance" (because there is no action at
all). Yet their measurement results are correlated in a way that classical
physics cannot produce.

Repeat the mantra: correlation is NOT causation.

A bus schedule is, at least in part, a self-fulfilling prophecy (insofar as the
schedule is correct). When a driver knows his bus is scheduled to arrive at
10pm, he adjusts his driving to make it so. Of course there are circumstances in
which such adjustment is not possible; the schedule is not a perfect predictor
of the future. If you think a bus schedule "causes" buses to arrive on time, you
are seriously deluded.


Tom Roberts

[nntp]

Post by Tom Roberts
That is apparently a bit garbled. But in any case, quantum entanglement
is a CORRELATION. Correlation is not causation.

How not, once is existent. It must have a reason for what the correlation
exists.

Lets assume you measure a particle. You do not know whether or not the
correlation exists. You MUST make sure that the particle is correlated.

The only way to verify the correlation is by measuring the other particle
as well. However, there is a deep mystery embedded in here, nobody want
to justify.

Once you measure a particle, the measurement is invasive, the particle is
destroyed. Consequently the other entangled particle is destroyed as
well. At least the entanglement is destroyed, since the first particle
does not exists anymore.

[Sylvia Else]

Post by nntp

Post by Tom Roberts
That is apparently a bit garbled. But in any case, quantum entanglement
is a CORRELATION. Correlation is not causation.

How not, once is existent. It must have a reason for what the correlation
exists.
Lets assume you measure a particle. You do not know whether or not the
correlation exists. You MUST make sure that the particle is correlated.
The only way to verify the correlation is by measuring the other particle
as well. However, there is a deep mystery embedded in here, nobody want
to justify.

I don't believe it's true that nobody wants to justify it (I assume you
mean explain it). I would certainly like to have a better understanding
of how the universe is structured so as to lead to this counter
intuitive behaviour. I'd be surprised if there's any physicist out there
who would claim to be uninterested.

But sometimes life just sucks, and so far all we have is a mathematical
description that says that the measurements are correlated, coupled with
experimental results that support the math.

It may be that there is no underlying mechanism that we will ever be
able to detect, either because it doesn't exist, or because it has no
measurable outcomes beyond the correlations already seen. If that's the
case, then we just have to live with it. The math will still be correct.

Sylvia.

[Walt Montgomery]

Post by Sylvia Else
It may be that there is no underlying mechanism that we will ever be
able to detect, either because it doesn't exist, or because it has no
measurable outcomes beyond the correlations already seen. If that's the
case, then we just have to live with it. The math will still be correct.

How do they see that the correlation really exists, without measurements.
Please be indeep, describe the apparatus, I can handle that.

[Y]

I fail to see how entangled states violate causality in any way. BTW, nothing needs to move faster than c for entanglement to cause action at a distance.

Thanks for your feedback Roberts. What you say is mostly correct, but I'm simply paraphrasing the RoS in a very simplistic way for those who have difficulty understanding it. The description of the RoS using the word "perception" is a bit sloppy.

The point I'm making is that a causal order; i.e Event A causes event B is not the same as a chronological order. The two notions are often conflated. You say that causality is poorly defined, but I don't think so. Nor do I think that causality has ANYTHING whatsoever to do with a light cone.

The RoS itself seems to settle the common misunderstanding that events unfold in a physical dimension of time. If time were a physical thing in nature CAUSING events to unfold, no reversing of chronology would be possible (which IS possible). If time itself is not necessarily part of causality, then it is not necessarily a part of all physical interactions.

The additional point I was making, was that in a world where time is setup as part of a causal ordering of events, the stubborn illusion of temporal processes are reinforced. What this means, is in the broader natural context, including the nature of human artificiality, time can indeed be a part of causality..

A bus schedule is a good example of this reality.

-y

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup

Post by Maciej Woźniak
Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup
|Yes, in the sense that if event A can affect event B, then event A is inside the
|past lightcone of B, and all observers will agree.
According to Your second beloved theory entangled states
have destroyed this dependancy.

|Nope.

:)
Event A - measuring one of the pair, event B - measuring
the second. Can affect each other, right? But, depending
on observer, A will be sooner and cause B or B will be
sooner and cause A.
Of course, assuming Your idiotic relativity.

|It is YOU who must think. And YOU who must learn what entanglement ACTUALLY
means.

If it actually means something different, than 4 or five years ago...
With physicists it is possible.

[Tom Roberts]

[presumably an EPR-type experiment]
Event A - measuring one of the pair, event B - measuring
the second. Can affect each other, right?

WRONG.

YOU need to learn what these experiments actually measure.

These experiments exhibit a non-classical correlation between measurements.

Repeat the mantra: correlation is NOT causation.

But, depending
on observer, A will be sooner and cause B or B will be
sooner and cause A.

No. Your attempt to ascribe this to "cause" is wrong. Neither detection event
"causes" the result of the other. If you had bothered to understand how these
experiments are performed, you would know this.

Repeat the mantra: correlation is NOT causation.


Tom Roberts

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup

[presumably an EPR-type experiment]
Event A - measuring one of the pair, event B - measuring
the second. Can affect each other, right?

|WRONG.

So, Your claim is:
Event "measuring one of pair" can't affect measuring the second
and event "measuring the second" can't affect measuring the first.

Did I understand You correctly?
:)

[Tom Roberts]

Post by Maciej Woźniak
Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup

[presumably an EPR-type experiment]
Event A - measuring one of the pair, event B - measuring
the second. Can affect each other, right?

|WRONG.
Event "measuring one of pair" can't affect measuring the second
and event "measuring the second" can't affect measuring the first.
Did I understand You correctly?

Yes. Neither MEASUREMENT PROCESS is affected by the other. The results of those
measurements are correlated, but not by any causal relationship between the
measuring events -- it occurs due to a causal relationship between the pair
production and each of the two measuring events.


Tom Roberts

[nntp]

Post by Tom Roberts

Event "measuring one of pair" can't affect measuring the second and
event "measuring the second" can't affect measuring the first.
Did I understand You correctly?

Yes. Neither MEASUREMENT PROCESS is affected by the other. The results
of those measurements are correlated, but not by any causal relationship
between the measuring events -- it occurs due to a causal relationship
between the pair production and each of the two measuring events.

You mean measuring the first, then the other, which is the same as
measuring the first twice??

There are two distinct measurement events, different time and different
location. They cannot be the same event.

This only make sense if the correlation is embedded into the system at
the time of entanglement particle generation. You imply this is not the
case, since the measurement will become obsolete and unnecessary.

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup

Post by Maciej Woźniak
Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup

[presumably an EPR-type experiment]
Event A - measuring one of the pair, event B - measuring
the second. Can affect each other, right?

|WRONG.
Event "measuring one of pair" can't affect measuring the second
and event "measuring the second" can't affect measuring the first.
Did I understand You correctly?

|Yes.

:)
So one more thing.
Two particles are entangled until I measure one of them.
When I do, they both are not entangled anymore.
True or false?

[Groove Salad]

Post by Maciej Woźniak
So one more thing.
Two particles are entangled until I measure one of them.
When I do, they both are not entangled anymore.
True or false?

A measurement destroy the one measurement. Is not clear what happens to
the other one. Relativity does not tell that. I guess they have no idea
what happens. They only know about entanglement from books and papers,
they are not sure.

[Groove Salad]

Post by Groove Salad

Post by Maciej Woźniak
So one more thing.
Two particles are entangled until I measure one of them.
When I do, they both are not entangled anymore.
True or false?

A measurement destroy the one measurement. Is not clear what happens to
the other one. Relativity does not tell that. I guess they have no idea
what happens. They only know about entanglement from books and papers,
they are not sure.

I meant "destroy the one measured"

[Y]

Yes. Neither MEASUREMENT PROCESS is affected by the other. The results of those measurements are correlated, but not by any causal relationship between the measuring events -- it occurs due to a causal relationship between the pair production and each of the two measuring events.

Wrong.

Entangled particles are studied using probabilistic measures. After four or so years of study into whether a change in spin state of one particle effects another 300km away, for one experiment, a "correlation" between these events is found.

This does not mean that there is no causal relationship between two entangled particles, just that we can only say within a certain amount of probability that a change in spin state of one particle effects instantly the spin state of another.

-y

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "Y" napisał w wiadomości grup
dyskusyjnych:0a859c30-0997-4e81-ad99-***@googlegroups.com...


|This does not mean that there is no causal relationship between
|two entangled particles, just that we can only say within a certain
|amount of probability that a change in spin state of one particle
|effects instantly the spin state of another.

And, after adding Your idiotic relativity, the rule
"if event A can affect event B, then event A is inside the
past lightcone of B, and all observers will agree"
is no more.