What do you think about this proposed relativity experiment? :

"Proposed split-causality test of the relativity principle"
by George Jaroszkiewicz, School of Mathematical Sciences,
University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK, (Dated: June 27, 2007)
http://xxx.soton.ac.uk/abs/gr-qc/0612082
Abstract:
We propose a test of the principle of relativity,
involving quantum signals between two inertial frames.
If the principle is upheld, classical causality will appear
to be split in a dramatic and emphatic way.

On Aug 7, 12:39 pm, "qbit" wrote:
What do you think about this proposed relativity experiment? :

Boring.

Causality has played nice so far, despite far more interesting
attacks.


"Proposed split-causality test of the relativity principle"
by George Jaroszkiewicz, School of Mathematical Sciences,
University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK, (Dated: June 27, 2007)http://xxx.soton.ac.uk/abs/gr-qc/0612082
Abstract:
We propose a test of the principle of relativity,
involving quantum signals between two inertial frames.
If the principle is upheld, classical causality will appear
to be split in a dramatic and emphatic way.

"qbit" wrote in message ...

What do you think about this proposed relativity experiment? :

"Proposed split-causality test of the relativity principle"
by George Jaroszkiewicz, School of Mathematical Sciences,
University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK, (Dated: June 27, 2007)
http://xxx.soton.ac.uk/abs/gr-qc/0612082
Abstract:
We propose a test of the principle of relativity,
involving quantum signals between two inertial frames.
If the principle is upheld, classical causality will appear
to be split in a dramatic and emphatic way.

Here are some principles and statement of Jaroszkiewicz
( http://www.maths.nott.ac.uk/personal/gaj/profile.html )
:
: - Quantum principles underpin absolutely everything;
:
: - The universe runs on process time and
: the block universe model is plain wrong;
:
: - Time travel is a mathematical artifact found in an
: incomplete classical theory, general relativity;
: it ignores fundamental physics questions concerning
: quantum processes and the acquisition of information;
:
: - A broad swathe of mathematicians and physicists think
: that "beauty" is a decent argument in science. I don't think so.
: I am fully prepared to believe that the universe is a dirty mess,
: if that is the best description of it we can find.
:
: - Frames of reference are fictional mathematical
: descriptions of processes in space and time which are
: useful if used carefully, but invariably contain unphysical
: implications which have to circumvented.
: For example, infinitely extended in space or time
: inertial frames of reference are unphysical. Any real
: apparatus cannot pass through another apparatus without
: severe collision problems, but relativists talk about
: frames of reference as if they could.

On Aug 7, 6:15 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Aug 7, 12:39 pm, "qbit" wrote:

What do you think about this proposed relativity experiment? :

Boring.

Causality has played nice so far, despite far more interesting
attacks.

The experiment seems to me to be quite worth attempting.
Jaroszkiewicz is a legitimate theoretician, exploring ideas
that are intensely counterintuitive and deeply at odds with
classical notions of causality.

My HIGHLY FALLIBLE intuition says that the experiment is
crazy. I'm betting that the experiment will fail, and that
classical causality will prevail. But this same highly
fallible intuition of mine balked at the the result of the
Aspect experiment, and completely "lost it" when confronted
with the experimental results coming out of the Weihs and
Zeilinger groups.

In other words, my intuition absolutely and totally sucks
when it comes to quantum phenomena.

Are not challenges as put forth by people like Jaroszkiewicz,
directly testable by experiment, the very essence of what may
be needed to reach beyond current theory?

"Proposed split-causality test of the relativity principle"
by George Jaroszkiewicz, School of Mathematical Sciences,
University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK, (Dated: June 27, 2007)http://xxx.soton.ac.uk/abs/gr-qc/0612082
Abstract:
We propose a test of the principle of relativity,
involving quantum signals between two inertial frames.
If the principle is upheld, classical causality will appear
to be split in a dramatic and emphatic way.

Jerry

On Aug 7, 7:09 pm, Jerry wrote:

[...]

Are not challenges as put forth by people like Jaroszkiewicz,
directly testable by experiment, the very essence of what may
be needed to reach beyond current theory?

Yes. But I still consider it boring. Mostly because I like cosmology,
and because causality experiments that aren't based upon entanglement
simply bore me.

I would rather see the resources that would come to bear to make that
experiment work be directed towards more useful tasks. We need more
space telescopes.

As far as I'm concerned, special relativity & quantum mechanics are
unassailable on the macro level. Yes, that is a poor position to take.
However, a century of people much smarter than me beating upon SR & QM
makes me think a different approach is required.

[...]

"Eric Gisse" wrote
On Aug 7, 7:09 pm, Jerry wrote:

Are not challenges as put forth by people like Jaroszkiewicz,
directly testable by experiment, the very essence of what may
be needed to reach beyond current theory?

Yes. But I still consider it boring. Mostly because I like cosmology,
and because causality experiments that aren't based upon entanglement
simply bore me.

I would rather see the resources that would come to bear to make that
experiment work be directed towards more useful tasks.

You mean for example for Gravity Probe A and Gravity Probe B,
and other manipulated RT experiments, right? :-)
How many billion $$ have these RT experiments costed the taxpayers? :-)
For such RT lobbyists like you everything that favours RT is of course
welcome, since it means big taxpayer money, but experiments for
everything else have no chance as they could prove RT false. Isn't it? :-)
We in science know how the RT sect controls the science,
esp. in the U.S., don't we?... :-)

On Aug 7, 8:20 pm, "qbit" wrote:
"Eric Gisse" wrote

On Aug 7, 7:09 pm, Jerry wrote:

Are not challenges as put forth by people like Jaroszkiewicz,
directly testable by experiment, the very essence of what may
be needed to reach beyond current theory?

Yes. But I still consider it boring. Mostly because I like cosmology,
and because causality experiments that aren't based upon entanglement
simply bore me.

I would rather see the resources that would come to bear to make that
experiment work be directed towards more useful tasks.

You mean for example for Gravity Probe A and Gravity Probe B,
and other manipulated RT experiments, right? :-)
How many billion $$ have these RT experiments costed the taxpayers? :-)
For such RT lobbyists like you everything that favours RT is of course
welcome, since it means big taxpayer money, but experiments for
everything else have no chance as they could prove RT false. Isn't it? :-)
We in science know how the RT sect controls the science,
esp. in the U.S., don't we?... :-)

Why is it this newsgroup attracts people that are so completely
stupid?

On Aug 7, 5:39 pm, "qbit" wrote:
What do you think about this proposed relativity experiment? :

"Proposed split-causality test of the relativity principle"
by George Jaroszkiewicz, School of Mathematical Sciences,
University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK, (Dated: June 27, 2007)http://xxx.soton.ac.uk/abs/gr-qc/0612082
Abstract:
We propose a test of the principle of relativity,
involving quantum signals between two inertial frames.
If the principle is upheld, classical causality will appear
to be split in a dramatic and emphatic way.

The author's time would be better spent designing
an experiment to show light propagation consistant
with the assumptions of his paper. Then he might
claim a Nobel prize.

http://nobelprize.org/physics/articl...ong/index.html

Sue...

On Aug 7, 11:01 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Aug 7, 7:09 pm, Jerry wrote:

[...]

Are not challenges as put forth by people like Jaroszkiewicz,
directly testable by experiment, the very essence of what may
be needed to reach beyond current theory?

Yes. But I still consider it boring. Mostly because I like cosmology,
and because causality experiments that aren't based upon entanglement
simply bore me.

I would rather see the resources that would come to bear to make that
experiment work be directed towards more useful tasks. We need more
space telescopes.

As far as I'm concerned, special relativity & quantum mechanics are
unassailable on the macro level. Yes, that is a poor position to take.
However, a century of people much smarter than me beating upon SR & QM
makes me think a different approach is required.

[...]

I agree with you for the most part.

Generally, however, I stay away from arguments over the
foundations of QM, etc. I have no competency in the subject,
so I have nothing positive to contribute. I try to stick to
stuff that I know.

Jerry

"qbit" wrote in message
...
: What do you think about this proposed relativity experiment? :
:
: "Proposed split-causality test of the relativity principle"
: by George Jaroszkiewicz, School of Mathematical Sciences,
: University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK, (Dated: June 27, 2007)
: http://xxx.soton.ac.uk/abs/gr-qc/0612082
: Abstract:
: We propose a test of the principle of relativity,
: involving quantum signals between two inertial frames.
: If the principle is upheld, classical causality will appear
: to be split in a dramatic and emphatic way.

Why would anyone want to keep testing something when it
fails the test on every attempt?