It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
You mean sort of a variation of the Quantum eraser experiment?
Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by Cosmic4life
Professor Cox seems to agree with you (or, the other way around). However, I think Cox has taken Pauli Exclusion to reductio ad absurdum. He states that all electrons in the entire universe must occupy distinct quantum states, but he fails to see that his own reasoning negates this.
Originally posted by Aim64C
that time.
What precedent is there that gravitational field density (and velocity, as it is derived) alters -time-?
None.
OK, fair enough. But are they entangled?
Originally posted by mbkennel
If the particles are entangled, then they aren't isolated,
Pauli exclusion principle:
The Pauli exclusion principle is an assertion that no two electrons in an atom can be at the same time in the same state or configuration, proposed (1925) by the Austrian physicist Wolfgang Pauli to account for the observed patterns of light emission from atoms. The exclusion principle subsequently has been generalized to include a whole class of particles of which the electron is only one member.
Pauli exclusion principle: no two electrons in the same atom can have the same set of four quantum numbers.
Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by Arbitrageur
What Cox is describing is definitely entanglement. He says electrons in separate atoms are forced to exist in unique quantum states, because, as he states, electron probabilities never truly go to zero and, therefore, electrons cannot be said to "belong" to a given atom. This would require that every electron in the universe follow the Pauli exclusion principle mutually with every other electron. His solution to this is to theorize that the energy (n) states of different atoms are slightly out of phase, so-to-speak. This results in electrons having ever-so-slightly different n-numbers relative to each other. So he says
Of course, there is observational proof that velocity alters time. Short lived particles produced in a quantum interaction traveling at relativistic velocities last much longer to an "outside" observer than they should. Even at the macroscopic level, at non-relativistic velocities, time dilation can be observed, albeit measured in nanoseconds.
In order to understand why time "slows down," perhaps you should go back to the "elevator experiment."
In general relativity, on the other hand, gravity propagates at the speed of light; that is, the motion of a massive object creates a distortion in the curvature of spacetime that moves outward at light speed. This might seem to contradict the Solar System observations described above, but remember that general relativity is conceptually very different from newtonian gravity, so a direct comparison is not so simple. Strictly speaking, gravity is not a "force" in general relativity, and a description in terms of speed and direction can be tricky. For weak fields, though, one can describe the theory in a sort of newtonian language. In that case, one finds that the "force" in GR is not quite central—it does not point directly towards the source of the gravitational field—and that it depends on velocity as well as position.
In sum, there is no reason to believe that things cannot travel faster than light, provided that it is possible to travel "backwards" in time. Objecting to this possibility based on concepts like causality is a philosophical objection.
Quantum tunnelling (or tunneling) is the quantum-mechanical effect of transitioning through a classically-forbidden energy state.
The Pauli Exclusion Principle says that no two fermions can occupy the same quantum state. It says nothing about atoms in the universe occupying the same energy state.
You are confusing 'rate' and 'time.'
Time as a causal structure is different than time as a rate of state transitions.
A refrigerator does not alter time. It alters the rate of molecular activity.
Demonstrate that velocity and/or gravity have the ability to affect causal time structure any more than a refrigerator does.
Are you catching on to this simple concept, yet?
Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by DJW001
Of course, there is observational proof that velocity alters time. Short lived particles produced in a quantum interaction traveling at relativistic velocities last much longer to an "outside" observer than they should. Even at the macroscopic level, at non-relativistic velocities, time dilation can be observed, albeit measured in nanoseconds.
You are confusing 'rate' and 'time.'
Time as a causal structure is different than time as a rate of state transitions.
No. Please provide your definition of the word "rate."
Verbiage aside, do you agree or do you not, that the observed rate of decay depends on the velocity of the particle moving in the reference frame where such measurement is done?
Time (as a causal string of events) and rate (one cyclic activity as compared to another) are two different things.
As I have said, multiple times - time can be kept with chemical reactions utilizing a number of different principles of chemistry. These are highly dependent upon temperature. Altering the temperature changes the number of cycles that will transpire during another activity it is compared against.
This, however, is not an instance of time manipulation.
Making the assumption that velocity and/or gravitational fields have the capacity to alter causal time is as logically flawed as assuming temperature alteration has that capability.
You still haven't explained what you mean by "rate." Now you have to explain what you mean by "cycle."
Incidentally, where did I ever use the expression "causal time?"
If you have bothered to read and understand what I have been posting, you would know that I consider time to be just another axis, interconvertable with the three we habitually conceive.
I think you are the one who is being obtuse, and suspect you are desperately trying to use semantics to "prove" that quantum foam is an absolute, universal frame of reference; the aether.
Relativity doesn't work without a universal frame of reference.
Two objects collide at a combined relative velocity of 1.2C.
Resolve that without assuming a universal frame of reference. You can't, without selecting an arbitrary region of space to set as your reference frame (logically, the point of impact.) The 'problem' is that each object will appear to collide at the same velocity (0.6C, respectively). However - if one object is traveling 0.9C, and the other 0.3C - the energy released from the impact is going to be far greater than two 0.6C objects colliding (presuming equal mass of the two bodies).
Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by buddhasystem
Verbiage aside, do you agree or do you not, that the observed rate of decay depends on the velocity of the particle moving in the reference frame where such measurement is done?
You're smarter than this, Buddha.
How is a decaying atom any more or less of causal relevance than shifting covalent chemical bonds?
That is to say - how is it any more relevant to claim measuring a change in the rate of atomic decay as being evidence of time alteration than it is to claim a refrigerator does the same?
If I place an atomic clock next to a black hole, how is that any different - in terms of causality - than putting a piece of meat in the refrigerator?