Faster Than Light in Aristotle spacetime

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by chaverondier</i>
<br />If Special Relativity is formulated within the framework of Aristotle
space-time and if the relativistic boost invariance of any phenomenon
which satisfies this symmetry is interpreted as an intrinsic property
of this phenomenon rather than a very property of space-time itself,
Special Relativity is compatible
* with possible causal links between space-like separated events,
* with a realistic interpretation of the wave function,
* with an interpretation of quantum collapse as an objective,
instantaneous and ubiquitous phenomenon (rather than a pure change in
the knowledge of the observer)
* with an interpretation of Alain Aspect experiment as an action at
a distance

However, it is worth to notice that Special Relativity is compatible with the observed so called "non locality" of quantum measurement as soon as one assumes the impossibility to bias the quantum measurement statistics dictated by the Born rule. Indeed, it is possible to derive the so called no-communication theorem from this assumption. According to this theorem, it is not possible to use the quantum measurement non locality in order to transfer information faster than light (cf [url] perso.wanadoo.fr/lebigbang/no_communication.htm [/url] .

Bernard Chaverondier

For more details, see [url] perso.wanadoo.fr/lebigbang [/url]
Compatibility of possible interactions propagating faster than light
with the formulation of Special Relativity in the framework of
Aristotle absolute spacetime

References

[1] Alain Aspect, Three experimental tests of Bell inequalities by the
measurement of polarization correlations between photons. Thèse de
doctorat présentée à Orsay le 1er février 1983

[2] A. Einstein, B. Podolsky and N. Rosen, Phys. Rev. 1935. V.47.
P.777.

[3] Bohmian Mechanics Sheldon Goldstein
www.math.rutgers.edu/~oldstein/index.html

[4] "Hidden Variables and Nonlocality in Quantum Mechanics", Douglas
L. Hemmick www.intercom.net/~tarababe/dissertation.pdf

[5] Erich Joos, Elements of Environmental Decoherence. To be published
in the proceedings of the Bielefeld conference on "Decoherence:
Theoretical, Experimental, and Conceptual Problems", edited by P.
Blanchard, D. Giulini, E. Joos, C. Kiefer, and I.-O. Stamatescu
(Springer 1999) xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/9908008

[6] Michael D. Westmoreland (1), Benjamin Schumacher (2), OH 43022 USA
Quantum Entanglement and the Nonexistence of Superluminal Signals
(1) Department of Mathematical Sciences, Denison University,
Granville, (2) Department of Physics, Kenyon College, Gambier,
www.arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/9801/9801014.pdf

[7] Is Faster Than Light Travel or Communication Possible?
Updated 14-January-1998 by PEG, Original by Philip Gibbs 14-April-1997
math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/FTL.html

[8] J.S. Bell, Physics, 1, 195 (1964); et "Speakable and Unspeakable"
in Quantum Mechanics. Cambridge Univ. Press, (1987)

[9] Claude Cohen Tannoudji, Bernard Diu, Franck Laloë, Mécanique
Quantique tome I, éditions Hermann, complément DIII et EIII § 3 b/

[10] Christoph Schiller, Motion mountain,
www.motionmountain.org/
paragraph 21 "Superposition and probabilities in Quantum Mechanics "
sub paragraph What is all the fuzz about measurements in quantum
theory ?

[11] J-M Souriau, Structure of dynamical Systems, Progress in mathematics, Birkhäuser.

Bernard Chaverondier
perso.wanadoo.fr/lebigbang
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Bernard Chaverondier
perso.wanadoo.fr/lebigbang

No information can go fatser than light.
Even spin state or eigenstate information?

Leo Vuyk.

One of the few Holistic-mechanistic worldviews was discussed but abandoned by David Bohm and his collaborator Jean Paul Vigier. David Peat described in his book "Infinite Potential" the gist of the problem, as follows: "Bohm argued that his "quantum potential" guides the electron in a non-mechanical way. But how exactly it operates was less clear. Vigier favored explaining the process in terms of some sort of underlying mechanism- a sub-quantum fluid, perhaps. In his opinion the electron exchanges energy and momentum with this fluid and in this sense the electron is "pushed along" (by the fluid). Bohm went along with Vigier for a time, but eventually he felt that his theory was being forced too far back in the direction of Classical Physics. The two men simply drifted apart in their philosophies."

...For Vigier, however, the crisis of the theory lay in the problem of nonlocality. The question of nonlocality is basic to the original debate between Bohr and Einstein on "Independent elements of reality". Einstein argued that if the quantum objects are far enough apart, they must be independent; since quantum theory could not account for this fact, then the theory had to be incomplete. Bohr countered that quantum systems are an "Unanalysable Whole". This wholeness, present in Bohm's theory, implied non-locality."

However, I would propose that Dual Anti-Mirror Symmetry and Big Bang entanglement (BBE) is the base for consciousness on all levels of existence. At the same time, we must be able in the future to measure the "Unanalysable Whole" of multiple Copy Universes, by more precise human intention/reaction experiments as Benjamin Libet did before, without knowing it.!!!

Leo Vuyk.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Leo Vuyk</i>
<br />No information can go fatser than light.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That idea went out when special relativity was replaced by Lorentzian relativity.

You really should spend a bit of time in the cosmology and gravity sections of this web site (the parent of this Message Board). Much has changed in the past decade. Especially, Vigier and I jointly published a refutation of SR and cited experiments showing that gravitational force is an example of a physical phenomenon propagating many orders of magnitude faster than light in forward time.

So all quantum paradoxes are now resolved by allowing non-locality. -|Tom|-

Dear Tom,
I did syudy your theory, but I had always the problem that I could not get the much-faster than light graviton into my own quantum mechanical socratic picture.
My only solution could be that the graviton information is heading chaotic but linear through the oscillating vacuum, instead of all the other photons which are supposed to make obligatory turns producing C.
However in that case,the graviton should form a separate entity from the photon family.
Leo.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Leo Vuyk</i>
<br />However in that case, the graviton should form a separate entity from the photon family.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">In current "deep reality" physics, the classical "photon" is no lomger an abstraction defined only mathematically. The name is retained to refer to any singlet lightwave. The pretense that it has particle properties is now gone.

As for classical gravitons, according to the experimental results in hand, they must be a million times smaller than the smallest known quantum particles, and travel at least 20 billion times faster than light in space. There is no question that they are separate from and unrelated to the light-carrying medium (now called "elysium") and its unit particle, the elyson.

With full concession that all conclusions about the quantum and sub-quantum worlds must remain theory-dependent until we acquire the means of direct observation, here is what this evolving picture means for the issue you posed.

Charged particles are surrounded by dense elysium atmospheres, which is what makes them repel others of their own kind. Elysium cannot travel through elysium more than a very short distance at any speed greater than the wave speed of elysium. (Imagine trying to get a melted comet made of pure water to travel through an ocean. To make that happen, the water would have to be placed inside a strong container not made of water.) So one can, in principle, exceed the speed of light in a spacecraft if one's craft has a hull made of condensed, neutral matter that has almost all elysium squeezed out of it. A charged particle in free space has no chance to meet those requirements. -|Tom|-