[Prune]

" wrote in
ups.com:

That obsever will see two objects traveling FTL relative to each other
as judged by the distances achieved in the time they are achieved.

That's meaningless, because the statement itself "relative to" means that
the measurement is done from one of the objects. The third observer will
see two objects covering each half of that distance, each below the speed
of light. Calling it FTL is a slight of hand. The fact is no object can
travel through space faster than c. Space itself of course can expand and
contract at unlimited speed (indeed beyond our Hubble volume, galaxes are
moving away from us at greater than c because space expansion between every
piece of matter and relativistic limits apply to moving through space).

[[email protected]]

Prune wrote:
" wrote in
ups.com:

dilation may explain the internal effects, but not what an observer
will perceive viewing from a neutral position outside either object.

You don't seem to get it. There is _no_ neutral position. ALL positions
are relative. And relativistic speed is not that simple to define, and
lenghts shorten towards zero as speed approaches c.

Let's keep it simple.

Do the two moving objects reach those 0.5 LY distant points in ~5.4
months or not? Never mind what they do relative to each other for the
moment.

OF COURSE THERE IS NO NEUTRAL POSITION. ALL POSITIONS OBSERVE
"RELATIVELY".

But the results relative to any given observer are key.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Ruud Broens]

"Prune" wrote in message
4.76...
: " wrote in
: ups.com:
:
: dilation may explain the internal effects, but not what an observer
: will perceive viewing from a neutral position outside either object.
:
: You don't seem to get it. There is _no_ neutral position. ALL positions
: are relative. And relativistic speed is not that simple to define, and
: lenghts shorten towards zero as speed approaches c.

Agreed, it seems Peter makes the common mistake of mixing classical and
relativistic views. Simply put, Einstein maintained that c is a truely universal
constant, upper limit to attainable speed in space and everything, that is
time and length, 'adapts' to conform to that.

Effectively reaching far away places faster then light would take to get there
may still be possible, though, if controlled warping of space could be achieved
yep, the stuff of SF ;-)
as you're bending 'the rules' in that case.

Rudy

[Sander deWaal]

"Ruud Broens" said:


Effectively reaching far away places faster then light would take to get there
may still be possible, though, if controlled warping of space could be achieved
yep, the stuff of SF ;-)
as you're bending 'the rules' in that case.


You mean you've never heard of something called the "Stargate"?
We don't need ships etc., that's sooooo 20th century! ;-)

--
"Due knot trussed yore spell chequer two fined awl miss steaks."

[Prune]

Sander DeWaal wrote in
:

You mean you've never heard of something called the "Stargate"?
We don't need ships etc., that's sooooo 20th century! ;-)

LOL. On the serious side, if travel through wormholes was possible, then
you could take one end of the wormhole and move it near c then bring it
back, and it would be lagged in time. Going in the other end would then
take you back in time. Which means you could have the paradox where you go
back in time and kill yourself before you went into the wormhole but oh
wait then you didn't really go through aaarghhh Nature is not inconsistent
at such a level and a paradoxical situation like this cannot be. Most
physicists are pretty sure that though wormholes may exist using them for
travel or information transfer etc. is not possible.

[Prune]

" wrote in
ups.com:


Do the two moving objects reach those 0.5 LY distant points in ~5.4
months or not? Never mind what they do relative to each other for the
moment.

But Peter, someone must be doing the timing. And that observer has no way
to verify their starting positions but by observing the light (delayed) as
it reaches him from those observers.

But yes, special relativity lacks something important.

That is, when two observers are moving relative to each other, which one
will have his time slowed down relativistically? In other words, there
_is_ some difference in reference frames. But you need to include
acceleration and general relativity for this.

[Ruud Broens]

"Prune" wrote in message
4.76...
: Sander DeWaal wrote in
: :
:
: You mean you've never heard of something called the "Stargate"?
: We don't need ships etc., that's sooooo 20th century! ;-)
:
: LOL. On the serious side, if travel through wormholes was possible, then
: you could take one end of the wormhole and move it near c then bring it
: back, and it would be lagged in time. Going in the other end would then
: take you back in time. Which means you could have the paradox where you go
: back in time and kill yourself before you went into the wormhole but oh
: wait then you didn't really go through aaarghhh Nature is not inconsistent
: at such a level and a paradoxical situation like this cannot be. Most
: physicists are pretty sure that though wormholes may exist using them for
: travel or information transfer etc. is not possible.

Heh, ok, traveling backwards in time, that's where i'd draw the line,
but i prefer the phenomenological view on physics, that is, we just
correlate observed (apparently physical) phenomena, but can not truthfully say
....this is how reality *is*..... only this is what it appears to be

a lot is interpretation, for instance, a particular non linear distortion of a
field can have exactly the same characteristics as a particle at that point -
i'm sure pjw would argue if it quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, ...
but in physics, it is not that clear cut :-)

a lot of today's physics is actually mathematics and that may, paradoxically,
lead to
completely unscientific ideas, like superstring theory, in the classical sense of
Popper, that is not a scientific theory - not falsifiable

Rudy

[Prune]

"Ruud Broens" wrote in
:

Heh, ok, traveling backwards in time, that's where i'd draw the line,
but i prefer the phenomenological view on physics, that is, we just
correlate observed (apparently physical) phenomena, but can not
truthfully say ...this is how reality *is*..... only this is
what it appears to be

a lot is interpretation, for instance, a particular non linear
distortion of a field can have exactly the same characteristics as a
particle at that point - i'm sure pjw would argue if it quacks
like a duck, looks like a duck, ...
but in physics, it is not that clear cut :-)

Yep, a lot of mumbo jumbo gets mixed into physics, even by physicists (like
concsiousness for example, and other crap).

Check out Mohrhoff's interpretation of QM. It's refreshing, to say the
least. http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9903051
I'm quoting myself from the forum:
In Mohrhoff's interpretation, counterfactuals are assigned objective
probabilities in whose calculation not just past/present, but also future
facts are taken into account. Also, to quote a Marchildon paper, according
to Mohrhoff's view "no unmeasured observable of no individual system
whatsoever has a true value in the interval between pre- and
postselection." Mohrhoff sees quantum theory not as a direct model of
reality, but as the information we can know about it, a probability
algorithm for assigning abovesaid values.

This is also a good one, where he trashes those that like to mix
consciousness with QM: http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/0105097

Enjoy ;P

[Prune]

flipper wrote in
:

Now you're falling into the same trap Peter was; trying to talk about
the 'end of a wormhole', which is, itself, a warping of the space time
fabric, as if it were a Newtonian object.

I was referring to the opening of the wormhole and translating it in
space. The scenario I noted was just a summary of something a physics
teacher mentioned couple years ago to us, though I forget the reference
of whom he was summarizing. But it supposedly comes from an actual line
of reasoning that's not as handwaving argument as what I presented.

And how do you so firmly know the 'consistency' of nature? (There are
time theories that deal with such matters)

I was pretty specific of what sort of inconsistency I was talking about.

I consider block time (all time instants are equally valid references,
i.e. all as 'real') as the only sensible view. The appearance that time
'flows' is a psychological artifact. In this construct, time paradoxes
such as the above simply cannot be, as it would imply two different
states in the same region of space-time.

I haven't taken a poll of 'most physicists', have you? On the other
hand, a 'poll of most physicists' in 1900 would have told you the
aether theory was 'proved' beyond any reasonable doubt and there were
no new fundamental principles of physics left to be discovered.

I think this inductive argument doesn't hold water. Just because the
sun rises some hours after it sets every day for a bunch of cycles
doesn't mean it will do so forever (and of course one day it won't
rise). I view science's modeling of the unvierse as asymptotically
approaching some limit (regardless of whether that limit is a perfect
model of the universe or what is knowable about this is limited). It's
not a smooth approach, of course ;P

Speaking of knowledge, I do think we are limited. Penrose's nonsensical
musings about non-computational physics non-withstanding (his argument
has been formally refuted), quantum limits like the non-infinitely
differentiable nature of space-time and the Bekensten bound which limits
the number of possible distinguishable quantum states in a finite region
of space, lead inevitably to the conclusion that we are just as subject
to the limits on information processing that the Church Turing thesis
prescribed to computers. Of course, the abstraction of a Turing Machine
doesn't interact with its environment, as some argue, but that's no real
escape since one can just include the environment (delimited by at most
the past light cone of the information processor in question) and the
overall system can be mapped to a finite automaton. OK that did get off
topic didn't it...

[[email protected]]

Ruud Broens wrote:

a lot of today's physics is actually mathematics and that may, paradoxically,
lead to completely unscientific ideas, like superstring theory, in the classical sense of
Popper, that is not a scientific theory - not falsifiable

Actually, mathematics allows for FTL and everything else as there is no
relativistic effects in pure numbers.

But the point of my simple-minded exercise is in-part based on the
Fable of the Eagle & the Wren in a contest to become the King of the
Birds. All the birds got together and decided to choose a king. They
discussed the Peacock, but decided that although beautiful, he was
empty-headed and vain. They discussed the Owl, but decided that he was
wise, but always sleepy. Finally, they decided that the bird who could
fly the highest would become the King. The Eagle then stated that he
could fly the highest and asked for any challenger. A tiny wren piped
up and said: "I will best you at that!", and took off straight up. The
eagle started up in lazy circles all pleased with himself. Meanwhile
the tiny wren flew onto the eagle's back and concealed himself in the
feathers. When the eagle had flown as high as he could and called out
for the wren, the wren rose from the eagle's back and said: Here I am,
above you!

We can all agree that an object will not be able to accelerate to
light-speed from a 'standing start' at any given point. Nor will two
objects traveling in opposite directions appear to be traveling FTL,
even if they 'arrive' at a distance that suggests so *relative to each
other*. However, if one has an infinite number of "eagles", each adding
an increment of speed to the next eagle, eventually, that "wren" will
be traveling FTL relative to the original starting point, but only a
small increment faster than its previous eagle. This would appear to
not violate energy requirements as the relativistic differences would
be tiny (in the Newtonian region).

The trick is getting all those eagles in the right positions.

Wormholes notwithstanding, my typical illustration of FTL travel is
either the flatlander's perception of a piece of paper... fold the
paper and the flatlander can reach the opposite corner in an infinitely
short period of time. Or in three dimesions, imagine a New Yorker
living on the 24th floor of an apartment building facing north on 53rd
Street. He has a friend who lives on the 24th floor of an apartment
building facing south on 52nd Street. Coincidentally, his bedroom
closet backs on his friend's bedroom closet, with a distance of some 30
inches of steel, masonry and plaster between them. To visit, they must
go down 240 feet, around the block, up 240 feet and so forth. Or, they
cut through the wall (and presumably rebuild it) each time they visit.

If wormholes are postulated, then the presumption is that the transport
occurs in an infinitely short-but-not-0-time. But even accepting the
potential for a wormhole to deliver prior to leaving, so to speak,
however one measures that aheadness, there is no potential for paradox
as that would cause an infinite regression resulting in the triggering
event hot happening in the first place... that is, time would 'reset'
rather than permit a paradox that would violate conservation-of-energy
requirements.

I refer you to Isaac Asimov, and his 1941 story "Not Final". Asimov is
another hard-scientist who had no difficulty speculating on FTL,
force-fields and all sorts of other stuff considered impossible (at
least) to the hidebound.

I am surprised, frankly, that the thought of FTL would cause such a
ruckus and a retreat to a rigid view of relativistic physics. As far as
I can see, nothing I have suggested violates relativity excepting
artful language to describe actual results. And as far as "artfulness"
is concerned, we are ourselves on a moving body in an universe of other
moving bodies where any movement(s) we make are incremental to already
established movements in already established vectors. So, if we choose
the correct vector and add the correct increments... why not?

Or, in answer to Xeno's Paradox: I am not trying to get *TO* the
tortoise, I am trying to get five steps *BEYOND* the tortoise. However,
once I reach the tortoise, I change my mind. That is how artful
language solves logically insoluble paradoxes (but it is not reality).
Frontal attacks don't. An example of the Frontal Attack is the Crimmins
Mack Truck Theory (After William Crimmins, who answered with it when
asked to explain Xeno's Paradox): Give Xeno a 100-foot running start on
a Mack Truck. Theoretically, he should not have to step out of the way.
That is reality, but no solution.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[[email protected]]

flipper wrote:

Besides the obvious problem of where you're going to find an infinite
number of eagles you're trying to accelerate an infinite mass (at the
light speed point) with a finite 'increment 'and any finite number
divided by infinity is zero (acceleration).


Actually, no I am not trying to accelerate an infinite mass. I am
trying to accelerate a relatively small mass (one wren) by a tiny
increment, that last increment that makes it (relative to the very
first eagle) travel FTL. However relative to all other eagles (and all
other eagles relative to each other), it is NOT going FTL, but some
less-than-c increment faster. Assume that each eagle in the chain
starts 'at rest' relative to the next eagle, which departs from it.
There are no relativistic speeds at any point in the process from
first-to-last, just what is within the nature of 'eagles' and 'wrens'.
I also know that the very first eagle will observe the wren under
red-shift light conditions, and so-forth. But to that theoretical
external observer, that wren will arrive one LY in distance at some
however-tiny fraction less than one year. Even if the travel observed
is as the base of a triangle peaking at the observer. Similarly the two
previous moving objects departing Earth's poles. If you make their
end-points the corners of that triangle, then the distance between them
(1LY) was made in less than one year.

The feather-mite on the Eagle's back sees the wren fluttering away at a
very wrenlike speed. And the mite's brother on the underbelly of the
Eagle sees the previous eagle getting further away at a very eagle-like
speed, and so forth back to that very first eagle.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Ruud Broens]

"flipper" wrote in message
...
: On Tue, 8 Aug 2006 17:04:44 +0200, "Ruud Broens"
: wrote:
:
:
: "Prune" wrote in message
: 44.76...
: : " wrote in
: : ups.com:
: :
: : dilation may explain the internal effects, but not what an observer
: : will perceive viewing from a neutral position outside either object.
: :
: : You don't seem to get it. There is _no_ neutral position. ALL positions
: : are relative. And relativistic speed is not that simple to define, and
: : lenghts shorten towards zero as speed approaches c.
:
: Agreed, it seems Peter makes the common mistake of mixing classical and
: relativistic views. Simply put, Einstein maintained that c is a truely
universal
: constant, upper limit to attainable speed in space and everything, that is
: time and length, 'adapts' to conform to that.
:
: Effectively reaching far away places faster then light would take to get there
: may still be possible, though, if controlled warping of space could be
achieved
: yep, the stuff of SF ;-)
: as you're bending 'the rules' in that case.
:
: You're essentially correct up to the 'bending' of 'the rules' part.
: 'Warps' and 'wormholes' arise form Einstein's original equations.

of course (interesting typo
bending the rules in the sense that in the described scenario, you're no longer
travelling *through* space, just ride along deformed space 'bouncing back'.
no applicable limits, thus.
:
: For some fun reading, that doesn't require one be a calculus whiz, see
: Kip Thorne's book "Black Holes and Time Warps - Einstein's Outrageous
: Legacy."

thanks for the tip
R.
:
:
: Rudy
:
:

[Ruud Broens]

"flipper" wrote in message
...
: On Tue, 8 Aug 2006 22:16:46 +0200, "Ruud Broens"
: wrote:
:
:
: "flipper" wrote in message
: .. .
: : On Tue, 8 Aug 2006 17:04:44 +0200, "Ruud Broens"
: : wrote:
: :
: :
: : "Prune" wrote in message
: : 44.76...
: : : " wrote in
: : : ups.com:
: : :
: : : dilation may explain the internal effects, but not what an observer
: : : will perceive viewing from a neutral position outside either object.
: : :
: : : You don't seem to get it. There is _no_ neutral position. ALL positions
: : : are relative. And relativistic speed is not that simple to define, and
: : : lenghts shorten towards zero as speed approaches c.
: :
: : Agreed, it seems Peter makes the common mistake of mixing classical and
: : relativistic views. Simply put, Einstein maintained that c is a truely
: universal
: : constant, upper limit to attainable speed in space and everything, that is
: : time and length, 'adapts' to conform to that.
: :
: : Effectively reaching far away places faster then light would take to get
there
: : may still be possible, though, if controlled warping of space could be
: achieved
: : yep, the stuff of SF ;-)
: : as you're bending 'the rules' in that case.
: :
: : You're essentially correct up to the 'bending' of 'the rules' part.
: : 'Warps' and 'wormholes' arise form Einstein's original equations.
:
: of course (interesting typo
: bending the rules in the sense that in the described scenario, you're no
longer
: travelling *through* space, just ride along deformed space 'bouncing back'.
: no applicable limits, thus.
:
: Kind of a 'play on words'. hehe
:
: :
: : For some fun reading, that doesn't require one be a calculus whiz, see
: : Kip Thorne's book "Black Holes and Time Warps - Einstein's Outrageous
: : Legacy."
:
: thanks for the tip
:
: I've had to buy the thing three times because it never comes back when
: I lend it out, so I suppose that's a 'recommendation'. hehe.
:

:-))
ok, some online recommended's:
*Hendrik van Hees on The Early Universe (the universe appears to be flat -
where the heck
is all that energy and matter ?)

is it real or the result of a model illustrated by the illusive *resonance
particle
or *Milo Wolff stating an electron is a continuous wave structure of equal inward
and
outward waves, not a material particle

who says there is just a 4 dim. spacetime ? *De Berardini says 6, that's 3 time
axis for ya

etc etc
:-))
Rudy

[Prune]

Even beyond that, there is the issue is of each eagle starting relative
to the other in the way he describes. The problem is these eagles are
all moving through space, and they all need to accelerate to their
respective speeds and you just can't get the sort of set up you are
describing. From special relativity alone this is not clear, but
consider that cosmologically the locally gravitationally bound
dispersion of matter (in our case, the local cluster of 31 galaxies is
gravitationally bound; the rest will disappear beyond the Hubble volume
due to accelerating expansion) sets a local inertial frame that pretty
much determines your starting point. The local entropy of the system
ensures that any macroscoping grouping of matter will tend to have
average velocity that is not a significant fraction of c.



flipper wrote in
:

On 8 Aug 2006 13:09:09 -0700, " wrote:


flipper wrote:

Besides the obvious problem of where you're going to find an
infinite
number of eagles you're trying to accelerate an infinite mass (at
the
light speed point) with a finite 'increment 'and any finite number
divided by infinity is zero (acceleration).


Actually, no I am not trying to accelerate an infinite mass. I am
trying to accelerate a relatively small mass (one wren) by a tiny
increment, that last increment that makes it (relative to the very
first eagle) travel FTL. However relative to all other eagles (and all
other eagles relative to each other), it is NOT going FTL, but some
less-than-c increment faster. Assume that each eagle in the chain
starts 'at rest' relative to the next eagle, which departs from it.
There are no relativistic speeds at any point in the process from
first-to-last, just what is within the nature of 'eagles' and 'wrens'.
I also know that the very first eagle will observe the wren under
red-shift light conditions, and so-forth. But to that theoretical
external observer, that wren will arrive one LY in distance at some
however-tiny fraction less than one year. Even if the travel observed
is as the base of a triangle peaking at the observer. Similarly the
two
previous moving objects departing Earth's poles. If you make their
end-points the corners of that triangle, then the distance between
them
(1LY) was made in less than one year.

The feather-mite on the Eagle's back sees the wren fluttering away at
a
very wrenlike speed. And the mite's brother on the underbelly of the
Eagle sees the previous eagle getting further away at a very eagle-
like
speed, and so forth back to that very first eagle.

Won't work because you have your frames of references jumbled and jump
from one to the other.

The 'small increment' of the "wren" will be relative to that frame of
reference and, as you yourself noted, one isn't going to accelerate
the wren to light speed in one jump, which is what would need to
happen from that frame of reference.

Observing from the "first eagle," however, you've got super massive
and contracted, eagles and wren out there and no matter how hard that
last 'push' is it ain't enough.

Just ain't gonna happen, as long as Einstein was right.


Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Prune]

Prune wrote in
4.76:

average velocity that is not a significant fraction of c.

Emphasis on velocity here of course -- if the object is very hot, average
speed of the particles can be very high, but velocity doesn't change.

[Prune]

flipper wrote in news:lgqhd295g9in20dlp1cd83982qil5ufpt7
@4ax.com:

Put colloquially, 'scientific facts' do no follow popularity contests.

Sure, but on the other hand consensus generally follows the probably
approximately correct truth given current understanding -- which improves
over time. I don't see big revolutions in science any more, just
refinements. Ever since Newton, it seems that we are nailing down more and
more of a better model of the world, leaving only extreme conditions where
older theories fail to be expanded upon.

[Prune]

flipper wrote in
:

That's nice. But I said matter, not quanta.

Matter particles are quanta too. And in a Bose-Einstein condensate, whole
collections of particles can behave like a single quantum.

[Prune]

flipper wrote in
:

No.

The link I had posted disagrees. The animation of the wavepacket is an
electron, a matter particle. The only difference between matter and energy
particles (fermions and bosons) is fractional spin and mass on the former.

[Prune]

flipper wrote in
:

Covering the walls of a container and imploding, two observed effects,
are hardly "behaving like a single quantum."

Look around for animations of a wavepacket in infinite square well.

[Prune]

flipper wrote in
:

Under the classical Copenhagen interpretation the 'wave packets' you
keep speaking of are statistical functions and not a statement about
'structure'.

Indeed, but this is not the currently most favored interpretation (and in
this case, there have been pollings of physicists in regards to this
question). Irrespective of this, such statistical functions have definite
spatial distributions and a macroscopic wavepacket such as in a Bose-
condensate exhibits these shapes.

[Prune]

flipper wrote in
:

No, the link you posted doesn't 'disagree' and as just one example, a
proton is not an electron..

Sure, the proton is not a fundamental particle, it's composed of quarks.
And the wavepacket that describes quarks are far smaller because their
larger mass gives them much shorter de Broglie wavelengths.

[Prune]

flipper wrote in
:

There is a definition of quantum and an atom, or collection of atoms,
being in the lowest energy state doesn't make them one.

This is not just a matter of lowest energy state. In a Bose-condensate all
wavepackets become synchronized and individual atoms no longer exist.

As temperature changes atoms absorb or emit quanta but they is not
one.

The bosons like photons that are carriers of the EM interaction, and the
colored gluons that are carriers of strong interaction in the nuclei, are
just two examples of quanta. Fermions like electrons and quarks are also
quanta, and also described by wavepackets.

[Prune]

flipper wrote in
:

That isn't what it said. It said they were (mathematically)
'indistinguishable'.

That's all that matters, unless you are proposing a hidden-variables
interpretation (something that's regarded as unacceptable by current
thinking). If they are mathematically indistinguishable, they are
indistinguishable in all but hidden-variables interpretations.

[Prune]

flipper wrote in
:

and a macroscopic wavepacket such as in a Bose-
condensate exhibits these shapes.

Prove it.

The text I quoted claims this, and I find no contradiction during my web
search.

[Prune]

flipper wrote in
:

I'm just going by your assertion of macro objects and, so, used one.

Hmm? I'm not sure what you mean by my assertion of macro objects.

[Prune]

flipper wrote in
:

issue is whether the graph of a 'wave packet' represents the physical
structure and it would probably (pun) be the first time in history

There is nothing in the theory that says there is any 'structure' at all.
If you say there is, the onus is on you to show justification for such an
extension. People have tried this (hidden variables versions), and failed.

it. To wit, the odds of a coin toss is well known but one would hardly
claim that .5h+.5t describes the structure of a quarter.

A quarter is a macroscopic object, so this is irrelevant, as various things
(depending on interpretation, but most often ascribed to decoherence)
prevent superpositions of macroscopic objects.

[Prune]

This is one possible version, and far from widely accepted. Since I see
discussion has taken such a turn, I'll also link to my favorite version,
in which space/time are not things but merely artifacts of positional
attributes of quanta: http://xxx.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0412182 (related
is http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0105097 and also interesting are
Marchildon's comments on this http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0303170 and
the general class of interpretations to which it belongs
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0405126 )


flipper wrote in
:

On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 06:58:00 GMT, Prune
wrote:

flipper wrote in
m:

Nice pun but no it isn't when physical structure is the interest
rather than simply the statistical odds.

The pun was unintentional.
What makes you think there is any definite 'physical structure'?

Because we don't know of anything that doesn't.

These people are working in the same direction I was.

http://www.quantummatter.com/body_spin.html

At the bottom "But note that spin, and other properties, are
attributes of the underlying quantum space rather than of the
individual particle. This is why spin, like charge, has only one value
for all particles.
--- The properties depend on the structure of space.----" (emphasis
added)

"This structure settles a century old paradox of whether particles are
waves or point-like bits of matter. They are
---wave structures in space.---- (emphasis added)
There is nothing but space. As Clifford speculated 100 years ago,
matter is simply, "undulations in the fabric of space". "

Those 'wave structures in space' are the waves *I* was speaking of.
(OK, so I'm a bit late in independently postulating it)

Note, don't confuse the two 'waves'. They're talking about
"undulations in the fabric of space (rather than of the individual
particle)" whereas quantum mechanics is giving the probability of
observing that "undulation in the fabric of space."

For an illustration of it, see the animation down low on this page

http://www.quantummatter.com/

Your 'normal' quantum equations give the probability of where the
'wave-particle' is but, 'in reality' (theory) there is no 'particle'
but a 'space-wave'.

As they note, this resolves the 'wave particle duality' conundrum
since there aren't 'two things', just the space wave, and that's
precisely how I arrived at it, in postulating there is no 'duality'.

What does
that mean exactly anyway?

Same kind of thing as it means to space-time.


That's a tautology.

And?

Look it up.

[Prune]

flipper wrote in
:

The significant 'turn' is that you have finally acknowledged 'I have a
little theory of my own'. Thank you.

Welcome.

In other words, he's saying precisely what I said and what you
objected to.

I don't quite see it that way. He doesn't ever suggest there is any
knowable "structure" beyond the probabilistic description. Indeed, QM
models all we can know about the system.

He does not say that "space/time are not things but merely artifacts
of positional attributes of quanta."

That is simply false. In the secondary reference by him I posted,
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0105097 read section 9, The Spatiotemporal
Differentiation of Reality.

I quote (underscore emphasis mine):

"The only positions in existence are (i) the (not manifestly fuzzy)
positions of macroscopic objects and (ii) the positions possessed by
objects in the quantum domain. The latter are **defined by the sensitive
regions of macroscopic detectors**, are always finite in extent, and are
**possessed only when indicated**. The proper way of thinking, speaking,
or writing about a region of space, therefore, is to never let the
logical or grammatical subject of a sentence refer to it. **Regions of
space are not things that exist by themselves, nor are they parts of a
thing that exists by itself**. Since they **exist only as properties of
material things**, only predicates of sentences about material things
should refer to them."

He then goes on to elaborate on this, extend it to time as well as
space, and argue that this space-time, which is defined solely by fact-
indicating properties of objects as explained elsewhere in that paper,
is only finitely differentiable.

"What is inconsistent with QM is the existence of an intrinsically and
infinitely differentiated space-time continuum. Neither space nor time
is a world constituent that exists independently of matter."

Which is exactly what I said in my previous post.

At the very least he's 'sympathetic' to my endeavor for a deeper
understanding.

Huh? He says right in what you quoted that the "sustaining myth" is
"the belief that we can find out how things really are." We can't. His
interpretation is of the class of interpretations where QM is a
description of the possible human knowledge about a system, and in
saying this I'm paraphrasing Marchildon's review of Mohrhoff's
interpretation (which the latter acknowledges and mostly agrees with in
another paper).

[Prune]

flipper wrote in news:q673e25ga7r3lipr1eoeb00jdtcn051g54
@4ax.com:

Possibly because you snipped the whole thing out to then say you don't
see it.

I snipped it because I didn't have anything to say on it, other than what I
did, that I didn't see it that way.

You argued "All quanta are wave packets" (your original assertion),

Yes, that's what they are in the theory.

which is a 'structural' declaration.

How?

Yet you also argue there is no structure

Indeed, there is no structure. Any structure one may guess at that is
beyond the probabilistic descriptions of the equations is part of the
"sustaining myth" that was quoted -- inaccessible by human knowledge, and
thus the existence of any such structure is metaphysics, basically
meaningless.

and then argue QM isn't a collection of probabilistic
equations.

Where did I say that?

I understand what he's saying. I did/do not understand what you were
(and don't intend to get into a discussion on the nature of
space-time).

LOL, who's snipping now...

The construction of space-time wasn't the discussion. My 'little
theory' was.

Er, right... considering that this thread is completely off-topic in this
group, accusing me of going off-topic is ludicrous.

Then I disagree.

Yes.

[Prune]

flipper wrote in
:

I reject that notion just as I would have when the same thing was said
about atoms, and then subatomic particles.

That would imply you expect one to find deeper and deeper structure, ad
infinitum (and I say ad absurdum).

I also reject it on general principle.

Which is?

[Prune]

flipper wrote in
:

What's absurd is to imagine mankind has achieved complete knowledge of
all things.

No, just that we have achieved the limits of our knowledge in some
directions. There are limits to knowledge, and indeed these have been
studied formally (Godel and Church-Turing restrictions apply to humans not
just computational machines because of the Bekenstein bound). No reason
not to expect we've reached some of these limits. And of course, besides
theoretical limits to knowability and our ability to determine
(mathematical/scientific) truths, things that are beyond the experimental
or observational are left to the realm of metaphysics and makes no sense to
discuss them.

[Prune]

flipper wrote in
:

it's impossible to define what one doesn't know

It is very much possible to delineate at least some of the things that are
unknowable, and the study of logic and branches of philosophy deal with
this.

the wonderful arguments based on current understanding notwithstanding.

You can throw around the word "notwithstanding", but it doesn't make it
applicable.