On 26 feb, 21:12, "Sue..." wrote:
On Feb 26, 3:19 pm, Albertito wrote:



On 26 feb, 19:53, "Sue..." wrote:

On Feb 26, 10:41 am, Albertito wrote:

On 26 feb, 14:44, "Androcles" wrote:

"Albertito" wrote in message

...
| I'm going to prove that when the travelling twin B returns
| close to twin A at rest, he is younger than A, and A is
| younger than B, too. It is saying the twin paradox and
| Schrodinger's cat are actually the same phenomenon!.
|
| Special Relativty is just a naive theory trying to describe a
| quantum phenomenon known as quantum superposition.
| Quantum kinematics is the correct framework for accounting
| for the so-called relativistic motions.
|
| The fact that moving B's clock would run slower than A's
| clock at rest, is a typical case of quantum superposition,
| because there is a symmetry telling us that, in proper B's
| frame, it is moving A's clock that runs slower. For systems
| which interact continuously with their environments, quantum
| decoherence resolves the superposition of states providing
| a mechanism for wave function collapses to take place.
|
Where's the proof?

The proof is as follows:
Consider two clocks, A and B, synchronized at rest,
Now, keep them isolated from environment, say in two
sealed boxes, where we can't observe them running.
Now, move one box in inertial motion wrt the other, at
speed v0.

Unless you describe how masses move in the
clock mechanism your experiment breaks with
reality here.

http://funphysics.jpl.nasa.gov/technical/lcap/race.html

Sue...

According to SR, A clock is now running
faster than B clock, in proper A's frame, but B clock is
also running faster than A clock in proper B's frame.
If both clocks have remained isolated, preserved from
any eventual perturbation. then when you approach
both boxes to be at rest close together, there wouldn't
be a twin paradox, but a Schrodinger's cat paradox.
A clock would show a time t_a, and B clock a time
t_b, such that t_a t_b and t_b t_a, but t_a t_b.
A clock marks two different times simultaneously, and
B clock, too.
Isn't that phenomenon a quantum superposition of states?.
When you open one of those sealed boxes, a quantum
decoherence is produced, so you can observe one of
those clocks shows a unique time, and instantaneously
the time on the other clock is fixed as unique too

Dear Sue:
You are right. How masses move in the clock
mechanism is very important for that experiment.
But, there is something called "entangled clocks"
that NASA is currently researching about

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2..._entangled.xml

I don't find the word *inertia* in that reference so it
contributes nothing to better describe how masses would
move in the the clocks of your experiment.

Try this:


Nice. Noether's theorem is a beautiful theorem, indeed.


-the invariance of physical systems with respect
to spatial translation (in other words, that the
laws of physics do not vary with locations in space)
gives the law of conservation of linear momentum;


Yes. But, what laws of physics? Those laws of physics
as we know and describe them? Those laws of physics
as Nature applies them, regardless our knowledge?
If we think we know the correct laws of physics, but it
results that our theories describing those laws are not correct,
what kind of conservation laws are we considering?
If you translate a physical system to a different location where
"the laws of physics" vary due to some still unknown cause,
then you should be forced to reconsider your "laws of physics",
because it is necessary that the laws of physics can't vary through
any spatial translation. New physics is required.

-invariance with respect to rotation gives the
law of conservation of angular momentum;


The same argument as above

-invariance with respect to time translation
gives the well known law of conservation of energy


The same argument as above.

On Feb 27, 7:14*am, Albertito wrote:
On 26 feb, 21:12, "Sue..." wrote:





On Feb 26, 3:19 pm, Albertito wrote:

On 26 feb, 19:53, "Sue..." wrote:

On Feb 26, 10:41 am, Albertito wrote:

On 26 feb, 14:44, "Androcles" wrote:

"Albertito" wrote in message

...
| I'm going to prove that when the travelling twin B returns
| close to twin A at rest, he is younger than A, and A is
| younger than B, too. It is saying the twin paradox and
| Schrodinger's cat are actually the same phenomenon!.
|
| Special Relativty is just a naive theory trying to describe a
| quantum phenomenon known as quantum superposition.
| Quantum kinematics is the correct framework for accounting
| for the so-called relativistic motions.
|
| The fact that moving B's clock would run slower than A's
| clock at rest, is a typical case of quantum superposition,
| because there is a symmetry telling us that, in proper B's
| frame, it is moving A's clock that runs slower. For systems
| which interact continuously with their environments, quantum
| decoherence resolves the superposition of states providing
| a mechanism for wave function collapses to take place.
|
Where's the proof?

The proof is as follows:
Consider two clocks, A and B, synchronized at rest,
Now, keep them isolated from environment, say in two
sealed boxes, where we can't observe them running.
Now, move one box in inertial motion wrt the other, at
speed *v0.

Unless you describe how masses move in the
clock mechanism your experiment breaks with
reality here.

http://funphysics.jpl.nasa.gov/technical/lcap/race.html

Sue...

According to SR, A clock is now running
faster than B clock, in proper A's frame, but B clock is
also running faster than A clock in proper B's frame.
If both clocks have remained isolated, preserved from
any eventual perturbation. then when you approach
both boxes to be at rest close together, there wouldn't
be a twin paradox, but a Schrodinger's cat paradox.
A clock would show a time t_a, *and B clock a time
t_b, such that t_a t_b and t_b t_a, but t_a *t_b.
A clock marks two different times simultaneously, and
B clock, too.
Isn't that phenomenon a quantum superposition of states?.
When you open one of those sealed boxes, a quantum
decoherence is produced, so you can observe one of
those clocks shows a unique time, and instantaneously
the time on the other clock is fixed as unique too

Dear Sue:
You are right. How masses move in the clock
mechanism is very important for that experiment.
But, there is something called "entangled clocks"
that NASA is currently researching about

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2..._entangled.xml

I don't find the word *inertia* in that reference so it
contributes nothing to better describe how masses would
move in the the clocks of your experiment.

Try this:

Nice. Noether's theorem is a beautiful theorem, indeed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem



-the invariance of physical systems with respect
to spatial translation (in other words, that the
laws of physics do not vary with locations in space)
gives the law of conservation of linear momentum;

Yes. But, what *laws of physics? *Those laws of physics
as we know and describe them? *Those laws of physics
as Nature applies them, regardless our knowledge?
If we think we know the correct laws of physics, but it
results that our theories describing those laws are not correct,
what kind of conservation laws are we considering?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem

If you translate a physical system to a different *location where
"the laws of physics" vary due to some still unknown cause,
then you should be forced to reconsider your "laws of physics",
because it is necessary that the laws of physics can't vary through
any spatial translation. New physics is required.

That is correct.

Tate, J., Cabrera, B., Felch, S.B., Anderson, J.T.,
"Precise Determination of the Cooper-Pair Mass",
Physical Review Letters, 62(8), 1989, pp 845-848

Tate, J., Cabrera, B., Felch, S.B., Anderson, J.T.,
"Determination of the Cooper-Pair Mass in Niobium",
Physical Review B, 42(13), 1990, pp 7885-7893

Liu, M.,
"Rotating Superconductors and the Frame-Independent London Equation",
Physical Review Letters, 81(15), 1998, pp. 3223-3226

"Search for Frame-Dragging in the
Vicinity of Spinning Superconductors"
http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0406761

Gravity Probe B
http://einstein.stanford.edu/

--Tajmar, de Matos
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GSP/SEM0L6OVGJE_0.html

"A New Apparatus for Detecting Micron-Scale
Deviations from Newtonian Gravity"
http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.1000


Sue...

"Albertito" wrote in message
...
On 26 feb, 21:12, "Sue..." wrote:

-the invariance of physical systems with respect
to spatial translation (in other words, that the
laws of physics do not vary with locations in space)
gives the law of conservation of linear momentum;


Yes. But, what laws of physics? Those laws of physics
as we know and describe them? Those laws of physics
as Nature applies them, regardless our knowledge?
If we think we know the correct laws of physics, but it
results that our theories describing those laws are not correct,
what kind of conservation laws are we considering?
If you translate a physical system to a different location where
"the laws of physics" vary due to some still unknown cause,
then you should be forced to reconsider your "laws of physics",
because it is necessary that the laws of physics can't vary through
any spatial translation. New physics is required.

Absolutely

IF we go to some other part of the universe (or look at a larger or smaller
part of the same universe) and find that what we regard as a law of physics
no longer applies, then by definition, what we thought was a law of physics
was not (or at least was a special case of a more general law which we had
not yet discovered) and so the laws would need to be modified. But we would
need to be very sure that we are correctly applying the laws and that it is
not a case that there are some additional laws coming into play with more
influence that is making it appear that our existing laws are wrong. That
is, it may not mean that we need to reject or modify existing laws, but that
we have found some additional laws.

So when you say "New physics is required", that does not necessarily mean
that the old physics is rejected or modified .. it may mean that new
physics is added.