Blurring Causal Lines

Joe Fisher

The real unique observable Universe am infinite. This is another utterly unrealistic article about supposedly finite invisible quantum quackery particle behavior. Visible material surface that can be seen with normal vision cannot possibly have a fundamental invisible construction that could only be understood by physicists.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Robert McEachern

"If we believe in the validity of quantum mechanical laws, and we believe in the validity of general relativity, we need to think of a situation in which the causal order is not well-defined..."

One can believe in the validity of the physical laws, while not believing in the metaphysical interpretations of those laws. It is only the standard interpretations of the laws, not the laws themselves, that are incompatible with causality and common-sense.

Rob mcEachern

Eckard Blumschein

Rob,

Is Relativity a law or just a standard interpretation?

++++

Joe Fisher

Dear Robert,

No matter in which direction a normal person looks, that normal person will only ever see a plethora of seamlessly enmeshed material surfaces. There are no invisible quantum particles in a real visible surface. Therefore, there cannot be any sensible valid finite quantum mechanical laws can there?

Dear Ekhard,

Visible material surface is not abstractly relative.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Eckard Blumschein

Rob,

Well, if you have an opinion, you will be better off hiding it. Bruckner published in "O. Oreshkov, F. Costa & C. Brukner, Nature Communications 3, Article number: 1092". While I didn't yet manage to access this paper for free, I was made aware of another paper in ncomms the abstract of which pretends confirming a holy cow while the results are valuable arguments against it, and the authors are aware of this. Otherwise, and in other prestigious journals they had perhaps little or no chance for publication.

Does "a situation in which the causal order is not well-defined" contradict to common sense? In some sense, I don't think so. Real nature, not the journal nature, doesn't define anything. The opposite of sense is nonsense.

As you will hopefully agree, non-causal theory is sometimes useful while dirty.

++++

Robert McEachern

Eckard,

From the article:

"But here was the trick. To allow the physicists to create a superposition between the order of events in Alice and Bob's laboratories, Brukner's team conjectured that the two laboratories were not part of a larger causal system. This causal fuzziness created an uncertainty in the order in which events between Alice and Bob had taken place."

In other words, they ASSUMED (conjectured) no "larger causal system" in order to subsequently deduce no "larger causal system".

Now let them prove that there is no larger causal system, without first assuming that to be the case.

Rob McEachern

Joe Fisher

The real unique visible Universe am infinite. Infinity cannot be accessed by real human thought, therefore, the term: "The team imagined what would happen if (abstract) Alice and (abstract) Bob each received a (invisible) particle from outside their (abstract) laboratories.' Is utterly unrealistic.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Joe Fisher

How on earth could: "For instance, a quantum particle can be in multiple places at the same time; before it is observed, it exists in a superposition of each of these possible positions simultaneously." There is only one real observable place and it is called here. Real here has a real observable surface. Real observable surface cannot possibly contain invisible atoms, composed of invisible particles.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Pentcho Valev

Special or General Relativity Is Incompatible with Quantum Mechanics?

The myth is that only general relativity is incompatible with quantum mechanics but initiated Einsteinians know that "the root of all the evil" is special relativity:

Joao Magueijo, Faster Than the Speed of Light, p. 250: "Lee [Smolin] and I discussed these paradoxes at great length for many months, starting in January 2001. We would meet in cafÃ©s in South Kensington or Holland Park to mull over the problem. THE ROOT OF ALL THE EVIL WAS CLEARLY SPECIAL RELATIVITY. All these paradoxes resulted from well known effects such as length contraction, time dilation, or E=mc^2, all basic predictions of special relativity. And all denied the possibility of establishing a well-defined border, common to all observers, capable of containing new quantum gravitational effects."

[link:www.newscientist.com/article/mg22730370-600-why-do-we-move-forwards-in-time/]"[George] Ellis is up against[/link] one of the most successful theories in physics: special relativity. It revealed that there's no such thing as objective simultaneity. Although you might have seen three things happen in a particular order - â€¨A, then B, then C - someone moving â€¨at a different velocity could have seen â€¨it a different way - C, then B, then A. â€¨In other words, without simultaneity there is no way of specifying what things happened "now". And if not "now", what is moving through time? Rescuing an objective "now" is a daunting task."

Frank Wilczek: "Einstein's special theory of relativity calls for radical renovation of common-sense ideas about time. Different observers, moving at constant velocity relative to one another, require different notions of time, since their clocks run differently. Yet each such observer can use his "time" to describe what he sees, and every description will give valid results, using the same laws of physics. In short: According to special relativity, there are many quite different but equally valid ways of assigning times to events. Einstein himself understood the importance of breaking free from the idea that there is an objective, universal "now." Yet, paradoxically, today's standard formulation of quantum mechanics makes heavy use of that discredited "now."

What scientific idea is ready for retirement? Steve Giddings: "Spacetime. Physics has always been regarded as playing out on an underlying stage of space and time. Special relativity joined these into spacetime... (...) The apparent need to retire classical spacetime as a fundamental concept is profound..."

"Rethinking Einstein: The end of space-time (...) The stumbling block lies with their conflicting views of space and time. As seen by quantum theory, space and time are a static backdrop against which particles move. In Einstein's theories, by contrast, not only are space and time inextricably linked, but the resulting space-time is moulded by the bodies within it."

Actually special relativity is incompatible with anything, for the simple reason that Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate is false. See my comment on this article published in Nature:

"Quantum probability assignment limited by relativistic causality"

Pentcho Valev

Joe Fisher

Only visible reality is compatible, Invisible quantum particles do not, and cannot exist.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Pentcho Valev

Special or General Relativity Is Incompatible with Quantum Mechanics? (2)

Perimeter Institute: "Quantum mechanics has one thing, time, which is absolute. But general relativity tells us that space and time are both dynamical so there is a big contradiction there. So the question is, can quantum gravity be formulated in a context where quantum mechanics still has absolute time?"

What a silly question! Newton's absolute time is true or false independently of any theory. If it is true, all future theories will have it. Theories involving Einstein's false relative time will be discarded and forgotten.

Pentcho Valev

Joe Fisher

Visible reality is infinite. Infinity is not durational. Finite invisible time does not exist.

Joe Fisher

Shaikh Raisuddin

Causality can be cheated only by modification in the inertia of actors

Joe Fisher

Visible reality does not have an invisible causality.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Steve Dufourny

Hi,

I thought about the perpetual motion.It is linked with the natural gravitation , universal and the rotations of sphères of course.The perpetual motion is not possible when we are on earth with a gravitation correlated with mass of course, so the forces act on this motion in stopping it, logic.That said, in space it is totally different in zero gravity.Two revolutionary systems can be putinto experiments and practies.The international space station must insert the rotation of a kind of big Wheel for the checking of the intrinsic gravitation.It will imrpove the experiments in space.Furthermore this rotation of this space adapted Wheel can give energy ,the adds of ather wheels in space can be relevant consideribg this perpetual gravitation, this perpetual motion.The forcesof rotations of sphères dear friends ......The complexity returns to simplicity, the détails returns to generality......

Joe Fisher

Any normal person can readily see that it is only real infinite illuminated visible surface that moves at the same constant speed. Light does not have a surface, therefore, light is always stationary. Einstein was utterly wrong when he tried to prove that finite objects moved at varying rates of finite speed and light moved at the same constant speed through an invisible vacuum.

Joe Fisher, Realist.

Steve Dufourny

Mr Fisher,

I d like that you develop a little instead to always repeat the same things about Einstein having false.That has no sense to say that light is stationary.In fact,you confound a little the spirituality and the physics and its laws, deterministic and foundamental.I found where is your error.It is about the luminerous aether, you consider it like a vaccuum towards the infinite entropy above our walls.So like a fluid , where god is present and stationary.It is interesting like spiritual analyse, that said you must be more rational you know.A lot of our past thinkers had the universal faith,a kind of faith in this infinite entropy above our physicality Tesla, Newton,Einstein,...thought about god.That said their reasonings were dterministic when they would to describe the physics of our universe.The aether furthermore is in logic gravitational and not luminerous.If this infinite entropy above the physicality creates a kind of project in imrpovement, so let's admit that the central cosmological sphere is the singularity where all gravitational codes come from.It is the only way in logic to inform us by the gravitational informations.Our standard model needs to insert an other logic than our electromagnetism and bosons encoded.It is just a step with foundamentals and laws like is c.The light is not stationary ,it is produced like particles and they are linear like is the spherons produce by BH.See that if we are instantaneous connected with this entropy, it is with this central cosmological singularity, the biggest BH producing the smallest and speedest particles of gravitation.Dark matter is this matter, not baryonic.If a kind of stationary aether due to its linear speed but in fact they aren't stationary physically speaking.You must really differenciate the spitituality and the determinism and the formalisation.Both can be harmonised with this said determinism.Einstein had right you know about his special and general relativity.This relativity is just a tool permitting to class our cosmological evolution for example in seeing our past in space.

Joe Fisher

Dear Mr. Dufourny,

You have a real complete visible skin surface. Einstein had a real complete visible skin surface when he was alive. No matter in which direction you look, you will only ever see a plethora of real visible seamlessly enmeshed partial solid, liquid and vaporous surfaces. No matter in which direction Einstein looked when he was alive, he would have only been able to see the same mixture of visible surface. The only reason real surface can be seen is if it is illuminated, light therefore cannot have a surface. Please stop writing nonsense about invisible particles and invisible God.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Steve Dufourny

well,still an illuminated wanting to give a course about universality, the am and the ego.Now you are going to ponder a vanitious post in logic.Well well well .You are am universe .You are am the sphere.And for your information, God was important for my favorite thinkers like Newton, Einstein,Tesla,....You thinkwhat ? that your spiritulity is better than an other.We are all equals mr Fisher.The rest is vain.Since that I see your posts you never develop, never utilise the correct language,never you are general???We are on a Platform where we share ideas and theories and models.The most of the time,the community developps and improves their works.Of course the sciences community is very hormonal and very vanitious.We have all our proud comportments.That said the critics can be relevant and interestings.It is not in always repeating that am or realist or this that you are going to have a correct credibiliy.We are on a Platform of physics and not philosophy.Develop, how do you see the sparticles, thestandard model, the bosons,how doyou explain the quantum gravitation?how do you interpret the dark matter, the dark energy?doyou think that luminerous aether is rational?how doyou interpret a BH? What are theseparticles not baryonic composing the dark matter? What is a fermion for you ? what is a boson? What is a neutrino ?What is the form,the shape of our universe ?

Steve Realist

Joe Fisher

Dear Mr. Dufourny,

My contention that all visible surfaces travel at the same constant speed and light is always stationary because light does not have a surface is true. Although this site keeps publishing ridiculous articles about invisible atoms and invisible quantum particles and invisible black holes, and everyone else who visits this site pretends to understand this preposterous codswallop, I know I am right.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Steve Dufourny

Hi Mr Fisher,

That is all? Could you develop please with physics.And what are the results of this ? I have really difficulties to encircle what you want to tell us? Develop please, in physics, philosophy,spirituality,evolution,...what you want in facct but develop ...

Joe Fisher

Dear Mr. Dufourny,

Please join with me in singing the Peggy Lee song: "Is that all there is?" Yes indeed, the real unique visible Universe am one infinite surface illuminated by an infinite amount of surface less light. Abstract physics information about invisible phenomena has been developed far past the limits of absurdity.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Steve Dufourny

:) you are cool in fact ,a realjedi of the sphere ,I like :) we are all linked indeed since the begining of the big polarization after all.Like jedis travellers froms stars and galaxies.We imrpove and we create, we evolve and we increase in mass entropy .We are all linked in a dance of rotations and spherisation.let's sing together the alleluia :)