Dissolving Quantum Paradoxes

Georgina,

Be honest, did you already carefully read the 57 pages including the 59 references? At least you might decide whether you prefer your "uni-temporal space" or Einstein's mathematical construct that contains a depending on each other elements like time dilution, length contraction, relativistic addition of velocities, a space-time with no distinction of future from past, and many related paradoxes.

With Claude Channon, I disagree with your attempt to reconsile: "'Now' has to be absent from the observer's space time observation product because the product has to be generated from a signal that has taken time to arrive and then takes time to process."

Of course, it isn't "counter-intuitive that each observer sees 'things' differently". Strictly speaking no observer can "see" something remote happen. What you are calling "uni-temporal" is just an assumption being logically justified by reprocity reason.

It seems to me you indend belittling the fundamental flaw by calling it (merely?) a (murky?) matter of categorization.

I agree on that the reason for the paradoxes can be understood - as partially explained by Klingman - as incorrectably linked to a basic misconception. Nonetheless, the paradoxes of SR remain terrible and perplexing.

Eckard Blumschein

Honestly Eckard I did not carefully read all 57 pages and references. That would be a mammoth, time consuming, task that I am not going to take on. I have however taken a look at what he has done, skimmed through a lot of dialogue, and I read with more care those parts that caught my attention.

Both uni-temporal space, where existing things are distributed, and space-time, in which the product of EM radiation processing by an observer is distributed, are needed in physics. They are very different and can't fulfill each other's role.

When it is understood that the observer's reference frame is product of EM processing and what is seen (whether by sight directly or by using an intermediate instrument) is not material objects themselves but images generated by the observer, there is no need for material objects to persist in time for non simultaneity of observed events. Without endurance of material things in time only endurance of EM signals in the uni-temporal environment grandfather type paradox can not occur. Barn pole type paradoxes: It is not paradoxical that different observers produce different products from the EM radiation they have received. Objects like rivets can not generate such a product. The twins are material objects and can not exist at different times, the receipt and processing of signals from distant brother does not affect material ageing.

Eckard, the fundamental flaw is a little thing with big consequences. I am not belittling the categorical difference between what is seen and material existence as something trivial, Richard Feynman did however.

Re. "'Now' has to be absent from the observer's space time observation product because the product has to be generated from a signal that has taken time to arrive and then takes time to process."GW -Everything that exists exists at the same and only uni-temporal Now. EM radiation emitted in one configuration of existence is received in a different younger configuration of existence. Only the youngest configuration exists (existence is not spread along a time dimension). Therefore the information obtained by the observer no longer pertains to uni-temporal Now but a previous configuration, that was but is no longer uni-temporal Now.

Georgina,

Don't trust in Feynman when he belittled the difference between past and future. Einstein even denied it.

Space-time must just be understood as a mathematical construct based on abstraction, not as a physical reality [EB].

Klingman made definitely a good job even if I am not yet able to comment on all of his intriguing ideas.

Now let's focus on quantum paradoxes again.

EB

I am sorry that you don't appreciate what I have written in the preceding few posts. I think it is a bit like seeing an optical illusion in a particular way or seeing a magic eye 3D image, Describing it doesn't help another to see, they have to see for them self.

Schrodingers cat thought experiment: decayed and undecayed atom are different objects not same object in different states, intact poison flask and shards of glass are different objects not same object in different states, alive cat and dead cat are physically different when biochemistry is considered not merely different observable states.

Eckard, when talking about EM radiation, whether the 'present' image formed from it is in the past or future of an observer (as far as the observer is concerned) depends upon the observer's location and thus when the EM radiation is received and processed. An observer closer to the source will receive the signal sooner. But that is not about material objects, which are always at uni-temporal Now, the same time as every other existing thing. Newton's argument for absolute time is that it is required for (his) God that is "always and everywhere". Essential for Newton but not modern physics. Einstein's time dimension was posited because of non simultaneity of observed events. However that does not require endurance of material things in time, only endurance of the potential sensory information in uni-temporal space.

Following on from what I said about the live/dead cat etc., the Schrodinger's cat thought experiment is not a paradox but a bad analogy.

A cat that has a black side and a ginger side can be said to be both ginger and black. It is an object able to provide sensory input to an observer or observers (by reflection of EM radiation from its surface) that could generate a product or products of both colour states (if both sides are seen) or either colour state (if one side is seen). However if only one side is facing singular observer only EM radiation reflected from that aside is received by the observer. So the observation product is limited to one state. It does not contain any information pertaining to the obscured side. The change is from a two state material object to a singular state observation product (no longer the material object). Without an observer there isn't a singular state observation product formed. The limited state product should not be mistaken for the material source object.

Georgina, being pregnant and simultaneously being not pregnant exclude each other. While there is a transition time between the two alternative stationary states one cannot be just a bit pregnant thereafter. Is it worth discussing the cat? I don't much think so. The flaw might be more basic.

Klingman mentioned on his p.1 the "multiple interpretations (Bohr, Bohm, Everett, QBism, etc,)" of quantum mechanics. This reminds me of more than ten mutually excluding explanations of retrograde motion of cathode spots in plasma physics. At best one of them can be correct.

If Klingman is correct concerning gamma, Einstein's SR is a castle in the air that was built on a misleading attempt by Lorentz to explain the negative outcome of the in principle identical experiments by Michelson in Potsdam and later on by Michelson and Morley in the USA.

Einstein's primitive trick was to calculate (effectively to define) the speed of light in case of a moving relative to the emitter mirror not simply as the distance at the moment of arrival at the mirror divided by the time of flight but as half the sum of the different distances from emitter to mirror and return divided by the time of this return trip. There is no reason for this counter-intuitive maneuver except for his intention to introduce what you Georgina are calling a categorization error. Cheating not just himself, Einstein contributed to anti-Jewish stupidities in Germany. More than a hundred authors before Klingman were obviously unable to shed enough light in the matter.

EB

The categorization errors are category differentiation error, not differentiating between material objects and products of processing of EM radiation input to an observer, and category omission error, where a relevant category has not been considered. Category differentiation error is introduced in comparison of train length measurements in "On the electrodynamics of moving bodies" A. Einstein. One measurement of the train directly using measuring rod and other a measurement obtained by observing seen train moving against seen background. Category omission error is found in the light clock thought experiment. Only the observation product is considered and not the Source reality. I do not believe that either error is a deliberate intention to mislead.

"And your astonishing contention that each frame possesses its own time dimension and physical laws essentially creates a real world each time you define a new inertial frame. This exemplifies the problem of identifying a mathematical projection as real physical structure, yielding paradoxes and contradictions associated with special relativity theory, for instance...

'Your clock runs more slowly than mine, while my clock runs more slowly than yours.' E.Klingman

I think E. Klingman is railing against something that isn't the problem but a matter of how it is regarded. He says "creates a real world" but the inertial frame is a way of seeing; what input is received together. Transmission of EM radiation is not instantaneous and therefore each very distant clock ought to seem slow compared to a local clock.

That whole first paragraph and sentence in apostrophes is from E.Klingman's paper "Everything's relative, or is it?", Edwin Eugene Klingman. 25 December 2018, page 28. http://vixra.org/pdf/1812.0424v1.pdf Reasonable use for purpose of criticism.

To be more precise -As the inertial frame contains what is seen to be co- present I should have written the inertial frame is a way of seeing; what input has been received together.

I could have been clearer. I think E. Klingman is railing against something that isn't the problem afflicting the theory but is problematic to E. Klingman because of the way in which it is regarded by him.

Also regarding there being no privileged or preferred reference frame in Relativity; that is as it should be. Each viewpoint leads to an observation product that is partial and limited by the input received by the observer with that particular frame of reference/ 'point of view'.The solution to the [not a] problem is not to select just one frame and then because all others are ignored say that it is privileged or preferred. It is in name because it is being given undeserved status but is not, by doing that, privileged as in providing the, only, correct solution. As E. Klingman is considering kinetic energy, there is a velocity term involved. What that velocity is deemed to be will depend upon the relative velocity of the observer; different for different frames of reference.

To be clearer:.. but is not, by doing that, privileged as in providing the, only, correct solution that could have been found.

Georgina,

"ST of Relativity - Logical inconsistencies" by Stephen J. Crothers:

http://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/APR19/Session/Y13.6

Sigma = 1 corresponds to v = 0 in case of Einstein's "conventional" synchronization.

EB

Eckard, when I wrote of the velocity being different for different reference frames I was talking about E. kLingman considering different kinetic energies. The page you suggested doesn't load for me.

What appears to be logical inconsistency can be explained by the lack of differentiation between products of observation (that I have for a long time referred to as Image reality) and existing (source) material objects (for a long time referred to as Object reality). For example the two distant clocks from which signals are received by the two observers. A received signal is processed into a product. The content of Those products pertain to the time the signals were emitted. They are not the existing reality external to the observer. They are not telling the time -Now (at uni-temporal Now) in which the material distant clock exists.