Peter2008-02-13 12:42:51

Dear all,

Charles writes on http://www.teleconnection.info/rqg/FoundationsOfSpecialRelativity,

“In a more rigorous treatment, spacetime structure would not be based

on the speed of light, but on a more abstract notion, the maximal

speed of information transfer. In practice, this is the same as the

speed of light, but experiment cannot entirely eliminate the

possibility that the photon has a very small mass and that light

travels slightly slower than the maximal speed. Using the maximal

speed of information we would find exactly the same formulae.

We can argue that a maximal speed of information is a physically

necessity. Either there is a maximal speed or there is not. If there

were not, instantaneous transmission would be possible, special

relativity would not hold, and we would find a universe obeying

entirely different properties from those we observe. The significance

to the philosophy of science is that, perhaps for the first time in

history, fundamental scientific truth can be shown by deduction rather

than by induction , and scientific law can be considered proven in the

strict sense.”

IMHO, special relativity rests on c=const in empty space and using

light for measuring distances. Nothing is said about the speed of

information in general. Theoretically, there can be instantaneous

transmission of other physical entities than light (except classical

bodies, the speed of which is bound by other reasons), why/where this

would contradict str?

What do you think?

Peter

Oh no2008-02-13 12:42:56

Thus spake Peter

Yes, this is normal. I am drawing attention to this argument (which is

sometimes used) because it closes a potential loophole.

It may be that particles can travel faster than light, but not that

information can travel faster than light. Otherwise there would be the

possibility of using the speed of that information to define a

coordinate system, and photons would behave as a particle with mass in

that system, which would mean that not all photons go at the same speed.

Regards

—

Charles Francis

moderator sci.physics.foundations.

charles (dot) e (dot) h (dot) francis (at) googlemail.com (remove spaces and

braces)

Ken s. tucker2008-02-13 12:42:58

Hi Peter and all…

Well, I think that if information did travel at an

infinite rate, it would imply I’d know everything

about everything at the same time.

How could I disconcern the difference between

our Sun and a star a millions Lyrs away !?!

An assumption of infinite rate transfer is the

equivalent of everything being an infinitesmal

distance from everything else, therefore spatial

distance would become meaningless.

That looks to feedback into the definition of Length,

where Length (meter) = c * Time (second).

Set Time =0 for the rate of exchange of information

and then Length becomes zero and the universe in

that scheme has collapsed all 4D to nil.

Regards

Ken S. Tucker

PS: You guys think property prices are high now.

Just wait for the land grab when the universe goes

to a point, we’ll be bunkin’ with Andromedain’s.

Douglas eagles2008-02-13 12:43:00

A basic momenta alteration was the relative event. And the

relationship between a frame knowledge and the a prori of not knowing

its relative event defined a class of theory. Information as a priori

events was to be a hallmark of Special Relativity. All the event as

knowledge was then allowed to exist.

What is importent when considering the information was its speed. And

the abstracted railway tracks of Special Relatvity design the answer.

Does theory event occur? Meaning does a prori event allow any further

speed advantage? And the use of light itself to formulate a theory

denies a knowledge to occur faster than any momenta change

observance.

All we need ask was how as sighting are we to alter a wavefunction a

priori? A collapse was to give instantaneous change a priori.

Begging the question, can we chance alter wavefunction and so

knowledge of two slits as opposed to one slit appears to answer the

cause. And when effect as the event of path occurs only the distance

was to disallow any further theoretical knowledge. Information is

therefor not a chance altered. And event was the knowledge of all

change not just a priori change.

We can therefor cause a priori event information. And the speed was

to be always instantaneous, because it was always a chance to cause

another. We can construct and so all effect was knowable. Just be

reminded that the time as effect was to be always the speed of

nature’s cause and human cause was to be the benifit of theory

applied.

Douglas Eagleson

Gaithersburg, MD USA

Peter2008-02-13 12:43:03

I wrote “physical entities”, not ‘particles’

Why? From what the speed would depend?

Thank you,

Peter

Peter2008-02-13 12:43:06

This is correct, if all physical propagation would go with infinite

speed. This is obviously not the case (light, acoustic waves,

ponderable matter). I just not understand, why propagation speed > c_0

is excluded by special relativity.

Thank you,

Peter

Oh no2008-02-13 12:43:08

Thus spake Peter

That does not affect my answer.

I cannot give a quick reply. I think it is a matter of studying the

arguments. Those arguments define simultaneity, and coordinate systems,

in terms of a maximum speed of information. Relativity makes sense and

works because defining coordinates in this way makes sense and works. As

it happens, the maximum speed of information is also the speed of light.

If there were two such speeds, there would be a conflict; if

simultaneity were defined consistently for one observer using either

speed, then it would not be defined consistently for another observer

moving with respect to the first.

Regards

—

Charles Francis

moderator sci.physics.foundations.

charles (dot) e (dot) h (dot) francis (at) googlemail.com (remove spaces and

braces)

Harry2008-02-13 12:43:13

Hi Peter, now your messages finally do appear in my newsreader! ðŸ™‚

SRT is based on the principle of relativity, according to which *all* laws

of physics are the same in all inertial (Newtonian) coordinate systems.

Together with the wave properties of light, the PoR can only be maintained

if no absolute simultaneity can be established – else, not all systems would

be equivalent for the laws of physics (in particular, apparent isotropy of

space).

Or, to put it differently: Laws of physics are about measurable physical

events related to physical entities. Thus, if your question is about

*measurable* instantaneous transmission (and measurement is information),

this would contradict SRT as its definition of relative simultaneity would

be invalidated by such a measurement.

Or, with a concrete example: suppose you establish simultaneity by means of

an instantaneous signal in a lab on earth – if you don’t calibrate in

accordance with that, you will *not* measure it as instantaneous but with a

positive or even negative duration, depending on its direction. According to

SRT, your lab is not in rest: it is moving nearly all the time in one group

of reference system and all the time in all other systems. Thus, you can

choose any number of Newtonian frames in which the speed of light would be

measured as anisotropic, based on your established (absolute) simultaneity.

Regards,

Harald

Oh no2008-02-13 16:33:40

Thus spake harry

Yes. Or to put it another way, absolute simultaneity would establish a

preferred system of coordinates in which it is obeyed. In other

coordinate systems, the speed of light would not be constant in all

directions. It would be akin to using sonar to carry out distance

measurements in from a moving aircraft.

Regards

—

Charles Francis

moderator sci.physics.foundations.

charles (dot) e (dot) h (dot) francis (at) googlemail.com (remove spaces and

braces)

Juan r. gonz l2008-02-13 16:33:54

Sat, 12 Jan 2008 14:07:00 -0600:

The confussion between action-at-a-distance (AAAD) and contact-action

(field theory) has self-perpetuated in literature more than a century.

It is true than special relativity introduces a upper bound for

transmission of interactions in field theory. And this bound gives famous

retardation of interactions (LW potentials).

However, the theorem does not apply to AAAD, where nothing propagates

between bodies.

In fact, a recent *rigorous* treatment of classical electrodynamics [1]
proves that interactions are not retarded but containing a dual nature:

an exact instantaneous component more a retarded component.

Contrary to conventional thinking, the instantaneous component is exact.

That is, it is not deduced from the retarded component whewn taking the

limit c –> infinite.

In fact authors of [1] prove that the instantaneous component is

*irreducible* to the retarded one.

However, i am not satisfied with this dual vision of nature. I am proving

that dualism concept in [1] follows from a more fundamental unital theory

of interactions. I get all main results on [1] more explicit functional

expressions for each component of the EM dualism and a number of extra

results: why retarded instead advanced effects, how 4D spacetime

emerges…

The technique can be also applied to gravitation, with two extra results:

i) we can see in a clear way why papers as that of Carlip on aberration

and the speed of gravity are not rigorous and may be avoided; ii) a

geometric modelling of gravity has limited applicability.

I have still a problem, and it is a rigorous derivation of the exact

retardation. Using arguments from NESM, the memory time may be of order

of {

effects on a memory kernel (Markovian limit). I want to work this on more

detail, including fluctuations on retardation (that is the light cone

structure becomes fuzzy).

—

I follow http://canonicalscience.com/guidelines.txt

Robert bristow2008-02-13 16:34:02

my feeling is that it’s essentially an historical accident that we

discover “c” as the speed of light (or the speed of propagation of EM)

where it is the speed of propagation of all fundamental interactions,

whether it’s E&M, gravity, or nuclear interactions. that speed is the

same for the different interactions i believe because of a fundamental

nature of free space in the propagation of perturbations of an agent

of cause upon whatever is affected by it.

a simple-minded thought experiment in the case of EM, imagine that you

and i are standing some distance apart and facing each other. you’re

holding a positive charge and i am holding a negative charge and that

we both are restricting our charges so they cannot move toward each

other but they can move up and down and left and right (just not

forward or backward). so i move my charge up a meter. since your

charge is attracted to mine, your charge also wants to move up a meter

and you allow that. then i move it down and your charge follows it

down. now i move it to my right (your left) and your charge moves

toward your left. then to my left (your right) and your charge follows

it.

now i move my charge up and down repeatedly and your charge follows it

up and down. that is an electromagnetic wave that originated with me

moving my charge around and that wave moved toward you (at the speed

of propagation of E&M waves which is “c”) and causes your charge to

move correspondingly. in a very real sense, my moving charge is a

“transmitting antenna” and your moving charge is a “receiving

antenna”. if, somehow, i could move my charge up and down a million

times per second, you could tune your AM radio to 1000 kHz and hear a

signal (a silent carrier). if i could move it up and down 100 million

times per second, you could tune it in with your FM radio just between

the 99.9 and 100.1 settings (provided no other stations were close

by). if i could move it up and down 500 trillion times per second, you

would see it as a blur of orange colored light. now i can’t move it up

and down an entire meter 500 trillion times per second because the

speed of that movement would exceed c. but i can have a whole pile of

like charges and move them up and down maybe 10 microns at a frequency

of 500 trillion Hz. that is what happens in a transmitting antenna or

something that emits visible light. charges are moving and that causes

other charges to move. but they don’t react instantaneously (as

observed by a third party that is equi-distant to you and i).

the reason for why “c” is the speed limit for information transmission

of information is because if, say, gravity was instantaneous, we (or

some gods who can hold planets and wave them around like we did the

electric charges above) could use that interaction to transmit

information faster than “c” but gravity, like EM is an “instantaneous”

interaction that propagates at the same rate.

the reason why “c” is constant is, i believe, because it is, using

meters and seconds, a dimensionful quantity, all measurements are

fundamentally of dimensionless quantities, and by definition, it is

always 1 Planck Length per Planck Time. we don’t measure the speed of

light (or G or hbar) absolutely but against some like-dimensioned

standard or unit. currently it the meter is defined in such a way to

set c to 299792458 m/s but if the definition for the meter was

reverted back to the pre-1960 version (the distance between two

scratch marks on a platinum-iridium bar in France), then a measured

change in c is plausible or at least conceivable. but the salient

parameter that changed is really that the number of Planck Lengths per

meter (between those scratch marks) and/or the number of Planck Times

per second (or per period of the Cesium radiation that is now used to

define a second) had changed. it’s those dimensionless parameters

that are important, our measurement or perception of c is

consequential.

the reason why this speed “c” is invariant for inertial observers but

with non-zero velocities relative to each other is because of the main

postulate of SR, that the laws of physics is the same for every

inertial observer (essentially that we cannot tell the difference

between a “moving” vacuum and “stationary” vacuum, so that there *is*

no difference between a moving and stationary vacuum and then there is

not apparent reason for the observed speed of light or speed of

whatever fundamental interaction to be different). the constancy of

“c” is

anyway, that’s what i think.

r b-j

N:dlzc d:aol t2008-02-13 16:34:04

Dear Ken S. Tucker:

The speed of light as *a* constant (not necessarily c_0) is a resultant of Maxwell.

Note that *every* detector uses light, inclusive of mechanical

limit switches (using electrostatic repulsion). Information must

be detected.

David A. Smith

Robert bristow2008-02-13 16:34:16

somehow a chunk of text was spuriously deleted. i can only remember a

portion of what was deleted…

… a secondary postulate, in my opinion. sorta like Newton’s 1st Law

really is just a special case of the more general 2nd Law, so it is

that the constancy of “c” for inertial observers really gets covered

by the 1st postulate of SR that the laws of Nature are identical for

all inertial observers.

at least it was something like that, that i meant to post.

r b-j

Oz2008-02-13 23:02:41

Ken S. Tucker

There is no need for this not to be related. After all light carries

information and if information has a restricted feed then light must

have a restricted field. In a sense information is a quantity of

something (I believe considered to be indestructible) then, like energy,

it spreads over many explanations of stuff (like mass, strong force

etc).

In a sense (indeed a reality) mass is energy, which is presumably why it

travels at c in the time direction.

—

Oz

This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.

Oz2008-02-13 23:02:59

Oz

far too early in the morning (5.00am IIRC) hence

—

Oz

This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.

Ken s. tucker2008-02-13 23:03:01

Hi Oz and all.

I suppose I should have said, I have no way of *proving*

info transfer is restricted to the speed of light, though I

think it is. A fella, (Eugene Stefanovich) and others like

Tom Van Flandern use infinite (or much faster than c)

rate transfer of info as a theoretical conjecture.

Suppose we have a radio transmitter T, and two

bodies “A” and “B” at the same location “P”

T ~~~~~~~~~>P(A <==== B)
"A" is at rest relative to T, and "B" is flying past,
Doppler shifting (blue) the signal from T, so B is
receiving info faster than "A".
While it's true the speed of the radio signal from T
to A and B is c relative to A and B, the rate of info
is different.
In this case the definition of rate information is
the frequency.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker.

Oz2008-02-13 23:03:03

Ken S. Tucker

Indeed but we are not talking rate of information but speed of

transmission of one unit (byte) of information.

The difference here is probably some sort of clue, but what I am not

sure.

—

Oz

This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.

Robert bristow2008-02-13 23:03:05

or do you mean “bit” of information. (can’t quite get smaller than

that.)

r b-j

Ken s. tucker2008-02-13 23:03:08

Hi guys.

I’ve been trying to *intimately* connect “c” with Planck’s “h”,

to define information as h/time = h*frequency, with the idea

of disproving “Tachyons”, it’s never been done before ?

Regards

Ken S. Tucker

PS: I think Peter the Moderator should ban Dr. Enders

from posting hard questions :-).

Oz2008-02-13 23:03:14

robert bristow-johnson

I have been bitten again, of course I slipped up.

—

Oz

This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.

Peter2008-02-13 23:03:18

robert bristow-johnson

Law 1 is more general than Law 2, for Law 1 is compatible with special

relativity, while Law 2 is not.

“the laws of Nature are identical for all inertial observers” holds true for

Galilean relativity, too; Huygens has derived the momentum conservation

during collisions this way.

Best wishes,

Peter

Robert bristow2008-02-14 02:24:46

really? that no change of momentum when no force is acting is not a

degenerate case of F = dp/dt? Law 2 is more general. and if you use

F = dp/dt = d(mv)/dt = m dv/dt + v dm/dt

instead of

F = m a

which assums the inertial mass is constant, i don’t even thing the 2nd

Law conflicts with SR. that’s the derivation where i first saw

E = m c^2

derived (but this E is the total energy with KE, not just the rest

energy and m is the same inertial mass that dm/dt is applied to, not

just the rest mass).

it is if you use inertial (relativistic) mass and the original

expression of Newton which was dp/dt.

r b-j

Peter2008-02-14 02:25:08

robert bristow-johnson

No.

First of all, Law 1 is about the conservation of (Newtonian, ie, essentially,

stationary) state. Law 1 applies, c** grano salis, in every branch of

physics, in particular to str and to quantum mechanics (Bohr 1913,

Preposition 1). In contrast, Law 2 specifies a state variable and, as a

consequence, does *not* apply to quantum mechanics (Bohr 1913, Preposition

2).

Law 2 is even less general than Law 3 (Liebscher).

for the interested reader: this form was first published by Euler

Do you have got any hint that Newton thought about the case that a body could

exhibit a *non*-constant inertial mass?

Thank you,

Peter

Robert bristow2008-02-14 02:25:14

sorry Peter. but you’re all wet. from Wikipedia (which i wouldn’t

depend on the absolute standard of truthiness, but this looks a lot

like what a textbook on mechanics would say:

Newton’s 1st law of motion:

If no net force acts on a particle, then it is possible to select

a set of reference frames, called inertial reference frames, observed

from which the particle moves without any change in velocity.

Newton’s 2nd law of motion:

Observed from an inertial reference frame, the net force on a

particle is proportional to the time rate of change of its linear

momentum: F = d[mv] / dt. Momentum is the product of mass and

velocity.

take the 2nd Law: the “net force on a particle is proportional to the

time rate of change of its linear momentum…” it says nothing about

the range of values of this “net force”. any of us is free to set the

net force to zero and the law still claims to apply. if the law

applies for a net force of zero, the time rate of change of momentum

is proportional, so must be zero. Newton’s 2nd law says that if no

net force (another way of saying that the net force is zero) acts on a

particle, the time rate of change of momentum is zero (equivalent to

“moves without any change in velocity”).

2nd law implies 1st.

this is trivial. your quotes of Bohr in 1913 are non-sequitur (and

don’t impress).

r b-j

Peter2008-02-14 02:25:16

robert bristow-johnson

I was referring to Newton’s original formulation, sorry for not having made

this clear. I think Bohr did so, too. For with reference to Euler’s

principles of state conservation and state change (Enders & Suisky, Int. J.

Theor. Phys. 2005), Bohr would perhaps have written that Euler’s principles –

in contrast to Newton’s ones – apply not only to non-relativistic classical

mechanics, but also to non-relativistic quantum mechanics.

The formulations you have quoted seem to be the result of that somebody

thought she thinks more exactly than Newton. That this is much more difficult

than most seem to believe can be seen from that formulation of Law 1 which is

void, because for *any* motion of a body, the body is at rest in the co-

moving system of reference.

In case you are interested in first to understand Bohr’s presuppositions

before judging about them, I would be happy to provide the original sentences.

Best wishes,

Peter

Oh no2008-02-14 02:25:18

Thus spake robert bristow-johnson

The very simplicity of your argument should make you suspicious that

there is something you have overlooked. Is it likely, you should ask

yourself, that Newton would have included a redundant law?

The first law is the physical means whereby Newton’s absolute space is

identified. In a general relativistic formulation it is the means by

which an inertial reference frame is identified. This must be done

before it is even possible to quantify motion or talk about

acceleration.

The second law defines the quantity “Force”. You cannot “derive” the

first law as a special case of the second because in the absence of the

first law, the second law has no meaning.

Btw, had I been moderating I would have asked you to remove insults

before offering to correct you. I suspect you only got away with that

because Peter moderated himself.

Regards

Charles Francis

moderator sci.physics.foundations.

charles (dot) e (dot) h (dot) francis (at) googlemail.com (remove spaces and

braces)

Ken s. tucker2008-02-14 02:25:20

Peter (Dr. Enders), is there anyway we can view

that ref on line?

TIA

Ken

…

Peter2008-02-14 06:25:27

”Ken S. Tucker”

Hello Ken,

I have emailed you a copy, any comments welcome ðŸ™‚

Thank you for your interest,

Peter

Peter2008-02-14 06:25:29

”Ken S. Tucker”

This message was created automatically by mail delivery software.

A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of

its recipients. The following addresses failed:

SMTP error from remote server after RCPT command:

host mx3.vianet.ca[209.91.128.23]:

550 sorry, no mailbox here by that name. (#5.1.1)

— The header of the original message is following. —

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (brln-4db9686b.pool.einsundeins.de

[77.185.104.107])

by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (node=mrelayeu1) with ESMTP (Nemesis)

id 0MKwpI-1JH3u31YQX-0005XP; Mon, 21 Jan 2008 22:10:35 +0100

Message-ID: <47950A25.3070204@dekasges.de>

Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 22:09:57 +0100

From: “Dr. Peter Enders”

User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031)

MIME-Version: 1.0

To: dynamics@vianet.on.ca

Subject: the paper

Content-Type: multipart/mixed;

boundary=”————050204040201040506050501″

X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+jLU9xPauBCpuLzTk1ZD3zUleTcaLV/lYoCrs

NukwdrraTBLOf+JBNFKeDypslQhY1a6Los173E+Opt9fFjF5JB

K5s3FYKdqgk3bbjNR49lA==

Ken s. tucker2008-02-14 06:25:31

Hi Peter, use dynamics(at)uniserve.com

Ken

Robert bristow2008-02-14 06:25:45

i didn’t call anyone bad or stupid or anything, nor did i think so,

but i think an *argument* is wet (i.e. does not persuade), even though

i said that about a person. i recognize that was bad. i apologize to

Peter. however it surely seemed to me (and still does, at least when

even more original language is examined) that it is lexographically or

semantically kinda silly to say that the case of zero force (resulting

in zero change in momentum) is not a degenerate case of the 2nd law.

i have asked myself that since 1973 when i was a senior in high

school. i know it’s a nearly trivial observation which is why this is the more intriging.

it does appear that the statement of that which was quoted from WP

sounds like that, but then it isn’t a Law, it is a statement of

conditions to set up the statement of the Law (or maybe 2 laws, the

2nd and 3rd, which actually predicts that some particular thing will happen).

given that semantic, i confess that i agree. i should have been less

lazy or more discriminating in looking for the version of words that

is most pertinent to this. i’m not trying to take anyone on about

physics, but more about semantics (about physics). and i’m not trying

to take anyone on, but still just support what i still think is true

about this issue. so, at the risk of embarassing myself further, i’ll

go to what it is purported to what Newton actually said (with some

comment/expansion):

again from WP, the purported translation of Law #1: “Every body

perseveres in its state of being at rest or of moving uniformly

straight forward, except insofar as it is compelled to change its

state by force impressed.” now this is worded as a law. it is saying

what’s gonna happen, not just setting up the framework or conditions

for a law to follow.

Law #2: “The rate of change of momentum [with respect to time] of a

body is proportional to the resultant force acting on the body and is

in the same direction.” may i not include zero as in the domain of

values of that time rate of change? i cannot see why not, and am

still completely convinced (by the semantic simplicity) that the case

of zero rate of change of momentum (and then of net force) is

precisely the meaning of the language used for Law #1. i’m just a

Neanderthal electrical engineer (uzed to be i cudn’t even spel

“enjinear”, now i ar wun), but i can read and derive meaning from

sentences in English and if zero is an allowed rate of change in Law

#2, then this wording of Law #2 implies Law #1 and it is redundant.

(and the only reason i brought this up was for illustration, that the

2nd postulate of SR, for the same semantic reason, is implied by the

1st postulate, a similar redundancy. it’s the first postulate that’s

the salient one, and, simply from the meaning of words, i can’t see

how the consequences of the 2nd postulate can possibly be excluded

from those of the 1st postulate of SR.)

again, apologies to Peter. i try to tread lightly in the

sci.physics.* newsgroups (i might tread more heavily at comp.dsp).

i’ll now slip into my flak jacket and see what comes back.

r b-j

Oh no2008-02-14 06:25:47

Thus spake robert bristow-johnson

In the fundamental postulates of a mathematical model, I do not think we

can necessarily untangle the semantic issues from the laws. Quite some

time ago I learned to recognise that the axioms of a mathematical

structure are actually the definitions of that structure. In pure

mathematics they refer to nothing outside of the structure itself, and

are true by definitional truism, provided only that they are consistent.

Only when one applies mathematics to something outside itself do the

axioms say anything beyond that.

Your position requires the full prior definition of both Force and

Absolute space, whereas I am telling you that the second law is actually

the definition of what a force is. I am not going to say that it would

be impossible to give a treatment which more clearly separate physics

and semantics, but I think such a treatment would have little value

outside of logic and philosophy, and it is not what Newton actually did.

If you found a more rigorous expression, you would not dispense with the

second law, you would merely express it as a definition rather than as a

law. In a more fundamental treatment of the laws of physics, the concept

of force is not required, and appears only in the form of mathematical

definition. One can replace the second and third laws with conservation

of momentum. We need the first law to describe what happens in the

absence of interaction, and conservation of momentum to describe what

happens when there is interaction. These are disjoint situations; one is

not a special case of the other. I think the discussion at

http://www.teleconnection.info/rqg/TheEquivalencePrinciple is relevant.

In my treatment of SR

http://www.teleconnection.info/rqg/FoundationsOfSpecialRelativity

I describe the maximal speed of information as a consequence of the

first postulate (more strictly as a consequence of the general principle

of relativity), and point out that the mathematical structure of sr is

logically dependent on the maximal speed of information, rather than on

the speed of light. Our ability to use light depends on the physical

fact that light travels at the maximal speed of information. The second

postulate contains this physical fact. It is not logically necessary,

and if the photon has non-zero mass it is not true.

Regards

Charles Francis

moderator sci.physics.foundations.

charles (dot) e (dot) h (dot) francis (at) googlemail.com (remove spaces and

braces)

Peter2008-02-14 06:25:50

Oh No

Furthermore, Newton states, that

– the state is described by the velocity and momentum vector, respectively;

– there is no external force necessary to conserve the state (this is in

contrast to Aristotle).

Moreover, the inertia is not mentioned in the Laws, only in the foregoing

Definitions.

If one does not account for the role of the state of a body, one fails to

understand Newton’s Laws.

This is the viewpoint of many. However, again, this does not exhaust the

content of this Law.

– Together with the other Laws, the momentum vector, p, is chosen as state

variable;

– it is implicitly assumed that the change of p is independent of p; this

limits Newton’s mechanics to the non-relativistic limit case;

– effectively, motion is fixed to motion along trajectory; this prevents the

generalization of Newton’s mechanics to quantum mechanics (cf. Bohr 1913,

Heisenberg 1925, Schr dinger 1926).

Good argument!

Thank you (also for certain other comments),

Peter

Ilja schmelzer2008-02-14 21:31:14

Nonsense, in the Lorentz ether or in Bohmian mechanics information

travels (or is allowed to travel) FTL in the preferred frame, and the

universe

looks the same way.

Ilja

Oh no2008-02-15 01:11:31

Thus spake Ilja Schmelzer

I can’t agree with this, and think you must be using a rather different

meaning of the word “information”. I intend it to mean that which can be

known to an observer. Either that cannot be transmitted faster than

light or the theory makes different predictions and the universe does

not look the same way.

Regards

Charles Francis

moderator sci.physics.foundations.

charles (dot) e (dot) h (dot) francis (at) googlemail.com (remove spaces and

braces)

Ilja schmelzer2008-02-15 04:41:41

Ok. But now imagine a theory which gives the Lorentz ether or BM as an

approximation, but differs from it in the sense that the hidden FTL

information transfer (which already exists in these theories) is no

longer completely hidden.

For example, imagine some lattice model, like ilja-schmelzer.de/clm.

The universe looks different in these theories. But not “entirely

different”. Together with the ability to distinguish the nodes of the

lattice we may loose as well the ability to read the FTL information.

Ilja

## Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.