I don't understand the principle of Schrodinger's Cat

[Xris]

Check my post at the top of this page. (#91)

Light. There is no conclusive experiment to indicate it actually travels. No experiment measures the speed in one direction. If it does not experience time how can we claim it travels. Einstein, as great as he is, prevents us exploring because no one wants to question the master.

[EMTe]

No, I meant the beginning of the post. Einstein and his contemporaries dealing with qm believed that their theories are neither complete nor their complexity does any good.

[Geordie Ross]

(Nested quote removed.)

Light. There is no conclusive experiment to indicate it actually travels. No experiment measures the speed in one direction. If it does not experience time how can we claim it travels. Einstein, as great as he is, prevents us exploring because no one wants to question the master.

The particle doesn't need to experience time, the observer does. That's the whole point of relativity. An argument from ignorance is not an argument at all.

Everyone has questioned the "master", do you understand how science works? People come up with an idea, then everyone tries to rip it to shreds. That's called the academic arena.

[Xris]

No, I meant the beginning of the post. Einstein and his contemporaries dealing with qm believed that their theories are neither complete nor their complexity does any good.

Sorry, I thought you were referring to my point.

-- Updated Thu Sep 05, 2013 3:34 am to add the following --

(Nested quote removed.)


The particle doesn't need to experience time, the observer does. That's the whole point of relativity. An argument from ignorance is not an argument at all.

Everyone has questioned the "master", do you understand how science works? People come up with an idea, then everyone tries to rip it to shreds. That's called the academic arena.

As I have said before Geordie. When you can understand the problem you might appreciate the question. Your wrong.Science(not me) claims that any particle traveling at the speed of light will not experience time.Nothing to do with the observer. I would suggest before you call anyone ignorant you check your facts. But what else can I expect from you

[EMTe]

The particle doesn't need to experience time, the observer does. That's the whole point of relativity. An argument from ignorance is not an argument at all.

Everyone has questioned the "master", do you understand how science works? People come up with an idea, then everyone tries to rip it to shreds. That's called the academic arena.

The problem with relativity, what I already wrote in qm/consciousness topic, is that it is unfalsifiable. More, it is constructed in such a way that it denies falsifiability. Or better to say it dissolves and converts into n number of falsifiability tries so that none of the proof against counts anymore. To prove whether relativity is true or not you need unconscious observer, but unconscious observer is unconscious, so he is unable to validate (understand/communicate/manifest) his unconscious observations in any way. And to validate "unconsciously" acquired/processed data you still need conscious being. Eternal loop.

As such relativity is not a scientific theory, and neither non-scientific; it is post-scientific.

[Geordie Ross]

(Nested quote removed.)

Sorry, I thought you were referring to my point.

-- Updated Thu Sep 05, 2013 3:34 am to add the following --


(Nested quote removed.)

As I have said before Geordie. When you can understand the problem you might appreciate the question. Your wrong.Science(not me) claims that any particle traveling at the speed of light will not experience time.Nothing to do with the observer. I would suggest before you call anyone ignorant you check your facts. But what else can I expect from you

Read what I wrote, I never said it does. It doesn't need to experience time in order to travel, the observer does. Time is relative.

-- Updated September 5th, 2013, 6:48 am to add the following --

(Nested quote removed.)

The problem with relativity, what I already wrote in qm/consciousness topic, is that it is unfalsifiable. More, it is constructed in such a way that it denies falsifiability. Or better to say it dissolves and converts into n number of falsifiability tries so that none of the proof against counts anymore. To prove whether relativity is true or not you need unconscious observer, but unconscious observer is unconscious, so he is unable to validate (understand/communicate/manifest) his unconscious observations in any way. And to validate "unconsciously" acquired/processed data you still need conscious being. Eternal loop.

As such relativity is not a scientific theory, and neither non-scientific; it is post-scientific.

Relativity is falsifiable, you just have to find an observation that disagrees with the propositions and predicted phenomena, nothing to do with unconscious observers. However many experiments and observations have confirmed and conformed with relativity.

[Xris]

Geordie are you actually claiming that photons experience time? You have been wrong before do you really want to add this to the list?

[Geordie Ross]

Please, tell me where I inferred that, tell me where I remotely suggested that, quote it in bold.

[Xris]

Light and relativity depends on the concept of light moving. If light was a relationship rather than a movement the observer effect would not be as strange as relativity tells us. Travelling at C the relationship would simply be reducing by the speed of C. If you are travelling on a train at any speed the distance between the point of origin and the point of arrival simple reduces.The rail track represents the light if you consider it as a relationship rather a movement between two points.

[Geordie Ross]

That's clearly not what I said or even inferred. Quote me.

Relativity says, the faster something is moving, the slower time is for them, relative to a neutral observer. As you reach the speed of light, time stops, (hypothetically), as no one can get a clock to light speed.

[Xris]

Please, tell me where I inferred that, tell me where I remotely suggested that, quote it in bold.

So how is the observer travelling at C experiencing time? You can't reject the idea that time and speed have a relationship. You need time to get from A to B. A particle or an observer has to experience time if it is travelling. You are telling me that light does not experiencing movement. Relativity does not explain this anomaly it simply states it. I am glad I insisted you made it clear.

-- Updated Thu Sep 05, 2013 6:54 am to add the following --

That's clearly not what I said or even inferred. Quote me.

Relativity says, the faster something is moving, the slower time is for them, relative to a neutral observer. As you reach the speed of light, time stops, (hypothetically), as no one can get a clock to light speed.

Read my post. It also tells us it increases mass. The more you accept the stranger it becomes. Alice had trouble with clocks.

[Geordie Ross]

If an observer was travelling at light speed, they wouldn't experience time, they wouldn't experience distance either, from a photons perspective, the time and location they're emitted, to the time and location they are absorbed, are the same.

-- Updated September 5th, 2013, 8:01 am to add the following --

There you go again with your, "it's strange therefore its wrong". Well screw your logic, reality doesn't care if it appeases our feeble hunter gatherer intuition.

[Xris]

If an observer was travelling at light speed, they wouldn't experience time, they wouldn't experience distance either, from a photons perspective, the time and location they're emitted, to the time and location they are absorbed, are the same.

-- Updated September 5th, 2013, 8:01 am to add the following --

There you go again with your, "it's strange therefore its wrong". Well screw your logic, reality doesn't care if it appeases our feeble hunter gatherer intuition.

I love it.You made a post and then realised it made no sense so you added a bit of insult to make it sound like you understand. You never fail me Geordie boy.

[Geordie Ross]

It does make sense, distance and time are intrinsically linked, if a photon experiences no time, it experiences no distance. But of course, this doesn't appeal to your intuition, therefore it must be wrong.... How arrogant. Why must the universe conform to your intuition?

http://www.askamathematician.com/2013/0 ... it-travel/

[Xris]

It does make sense, distance and time are intrinsically linked, if a photon experiences no time, it experiences no distance. But of course, this doesn't appeal to your intuition, therefore it must be wrong.... How arrogant. Why must the universe conform to your intuition?

http://www.askamathematician.com/2013/0 ... it-travel/

And you honestly believe this answers the damned question.Some childlike article that is simply relaying your original post. From what perspective can you place the observer where this stupid idea has any value? If the light from the sun takes x minutes to get to us how did it not experience time, maybe x always equals 0. The problem you and relativity has that it ignores the paradoxes of its own invention. Wrap it up mumbo jumbo and you think it makes sense.