The Wave/Particle Paradox

(Oct 13, 2018 01:07 AM)confused2 Wrote:

Syne Wrote:c is just the causality that orders events, which has consequences for space, time, and light equally. Space and time contract and dilate to accommodate causality, not vice versa.

The muon thread  https://www.scivillage.com/thread-6274-p...l#pid24042 was created to address (some of) these points. There are examples in quantum mechanics (entanglement and just about everything else) that work with no regard to 'causality' and the speed of light. It is my 'view' that (as far as SR is concerned) causality will follow from the geometry. I agree that when designing a universe you might (possibly) start with causality and end up with the geometry - this is a rather deeper argument than I am equipped to deal with. I just play 'em as I see 'em.

Quantum mechanics also works with no regard to SR, or even GR, spacetime, as it views space and time as Newtonian absolutes. So your "view" gives us no reason to prioritize spacetime over causality.

Quote:

Syne Wrote:No, since spacetime, itself, can expand faster than the speed of light,

This is beyond the scope of a thread that asks about SR and flat space. Since GR is derived from SR I would guess the geometry still works at a local level but will fail outside its domain of applicability.

If your "guess" cannot be generalized, there's no reason to assume it is fundamental.

I think the short answer is that it does violate the second postulate. I don’t think it’s all that naive, though. Wrong, perhaps but a quick search reveals similar ideas.

http://cds.cern.ch/record/729779/files/0404044.pdf
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1611/1611.00226.pdf
http://vixra.org/pdf/1704.0219v1.pdf

I'm exhausted. I'll check back in later.

Nite, guys. 

(Oct 13, 2018 04:35 AM)Secular Sanity Wrote: I think the short answer is that it does violate the second postulate.

No, light is never at rest, nor does it have a comoving frame.

(Oct 13, 2018 04:53 AM)Syne Wrote:

(Oct 13, 2018 04:35 AM)Secular Sanity Wrote: I think the short answer is that it does violate the second postulate.

No, light is never at rest, nor does it have a comoving frame.

It is to. It’s the simplest answer to my question.

(Oct 11, 2018 11:29 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: Here’s the thing, though. If we simply think of our perception of light traveling at c, it doesn’t violate the second postulate, does it?

The speed of light is constant in all frames of reference. If you think, not about how light would perceive time and distance, but how we would perceive it, and if we applied the Lorentz transformation to light, that, too, would violate the second postulate of SR.

(Oct 13, 2018 03:08 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote:

(Oct 13, 2018 04:53 AM)Syne Wrote:

(Oct 13, 2018 04:35 AM)Secular Sanity Wrote: I think the short answer is that it does violate the second postulate.

No, light is never at rest, nor does it have a comoving frame.

It is to. It’s the simplest answer to my question.

No, you're just ignorant of the physics. Otherwise, show us a credible source about light being at rest or having a proper frame.

Quote:

(Oct 11, 2018 11:29 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: Here’s the thing, though. If we simply think of our perception of light traveling at c, it doesn’t violate the second postulate, does it?

The speed of light is constant in all frames of reference. If you think, not about how light would perceive time and distance, but how we would perceive it, and if we applied the Lorentz transformation to light, that, too, would violate the second postulate of SR.

No, there is no Lorentz transformation to or from a frame moving at c. Even just saying "The speed of light is constant in all frames of reference" literally means that, if it had a rest frame, light would necessarily be moving at c relative to itself...which is complete gibberish. That's how rest frames are defined.

And massive observers cannot move at c, so how "we would perceive" such a gibberish frame is equally nonsense. Just an ignorance of the physics.

Now toddle along until you learn enough to join adult discussions on the subject.

I already said that. Do you want to go back to being a condescending dick again, is that it?

The frame doesn’t exist because without a limit of c, space-time would not even exist. The limit reiterates the two postulates.

(Oct 13, 2018 09:44 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: I already said that. Do you want to go back to being a condescending dick again, is that it?

Now you're just trying to lie you way out. You literally just said:

(Oct 13, 2018 03:08 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote:

(Oct 13, 2018 04:53 AM)Syne Wrote: No, light is never at rest, nor does it have a comoving frame.

It is to. It’s the simplest answer to my question.

Quote:The frame doesn’t exist because without a limit of c, space-time would not even exist. The limit reiterates the two postulates.

Since spacetime can expand faster than c, it's obvious that spacetime can exist without being subject to the limit of c. The speed of light is just one of the universal constants that mediate how space evolves over time.

Sorry but I'm not a big fat liar like you. In fact, I just caught you in another one just the other day. I won't you call out on it, though. I'm nice like that. It's just people being people, I suppose.

"It is to." was in regards to it being the simplest answer. 

Read it again.

(Oct 13, 2018 11:20 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: Sorry but I'm not a big fat liar like you. In fact, I just caught you in another one just the other day. I won't you call out on it, though. I'm nice like that. It's just people being people, I suppose.

"It is to." was in regards to it being the simplest answer. 

Read it again.

You're so full of shit. We all know you bringing up a supposed lie (that you won't actually name) is just you trying to poison the well. That's not being nice; that's being passive aggressive.

You said:

(Oct 13, 2018 03:08 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote:

(Oct 13, 2018 04:53 AM)Syne Wrote:

(Oct 13, 2018 04:35 AM)Secular Sanity Wrote: I think the short answer is that it does violate the second postulate.

No, light is never at rest, nor does it have a comoving frame.

It is to. It’s the simplest answer to my question.

What do you think makes the speed of light in vacuum NOT the same in all inertial reference frames (you know, violating the second postulate of SR)? O_o
Do you think light has a rest frame? If not, why did you think me saying it didn't refuted your claim at all? O_o
Or are you going to keep deflecting and trying to backpedal?

(Oct 13, 2018 11:49 PM)Syne Wrote: You're so full of shit. We all know you bringing up a supposed lie (that you won't actually name) is just you trying to poison the well. That's not being nice; that's being passive aggressive.

Nope. I already said that you used the word "academic" in regards to your knowledge base. The new one? Would you prefer a pm or do you want me to just blurt it out?

Syne Wrote:What do you think makes the speed of light in vacuum NOT the same in all inertial reference frames (you know, violating the second postulate of SR)? O_o
Do you think light has a rest frame? If not, why did you think me saying it didn't refuted your claim at all? O_o
Or are you going to keep deflecting and trying to backpedal?  

Backpedaling is your forte. I wouldn't want to steal your thunder.

What I was trying to convey was that even if there were a valid rest frame where light was at rest, it would violate the postulate because it wouldn’t be a constant.