324 reputation
18
bio website
location
age
visits member for 2 years, 9 months
seen 10 hours ago

Jul
2
awarded  Curious
May
29
awarded  Yearling
May
29
comment Is there always a frame in which spatially separated events are simultaneous?
Just one question, the answer you gave would change if we were to allow information to travel faster than light right?
May
29
accepted Is there always a frame in which spatially separated events are simultaneous?
May
29
comment Is there always a frame in which spatially separated events are simultaneous?
@Kevin, :) true. Thanks for all the answers.
May
28
comment Is there always a frame in which spatially separated events are simultaneous?
OK, but my original question is whether given two events with arbitrary time delay in the rest frame between the two events, and arbitrary separation between the positions of the events, can we then always find a frame in which they are simultaneous? I think the answer you have given is no. This is good, because for example, it's absurd that me typing this message is simultaneous with say George Washington's birth from some frame of reference.
May
28
comment Is there always a frame in which spatially separated events are simultaneous?
Good answer. Somehow this violates my intuition though. I feel like I see simultaneous events all the time with only a small amount of distance between the two events.
May
28
comment Is there always a frame in which spatially separated events are simultaneous?
Well, there's no causality in my question at all, which is why I down voted.
May
28
awarded  Critic
May
28
comment Is there always a frame in which spatially separated events are simultaneous?
In my question body, I specify that the two people dropping the balls are on opposite sides of the tennis court, so they are spatially separated.
May
28
asked Is there always a frame in which spatially separated events are simultaneous?
May
28
comment What are the Implications of Bell's Theorem?
-- Quote from John Bell
May
28
comment What are the Implications of Bell's Theorem?
@ Mitchison, "It is important to note that to the limited degree to which determinism plays a role in the EPR argument, it is not assumed but inferred. What is held sacred is the principle of local causality' -- or no action at a distance'. Of course, mere correlation between distant events does not by itself imply action at a distance, but only correlation between the signals reaching the two places. These signals, in the idealized example of Bohm, must be sufficient to determine whether the particles go up or down. For any residual undeterminism could only spoil the perfect correlation."
May
28
comment What are the Implications of Bell's Theorem?
No, and I don't have an argument against Santa Claus.
May
28
comment What are the Implications of Bell's Theorem?
@ Mark Mitchison No, I'm saying that the anti-realist view implies information transfer between entangled subsystems at a distance. I agree completely with the anti-realist view. I have to in lieu of Bell's Theorem.
May
28
comment What are the Implications of Bell's Theorem?
Sorry, but I have no sympathy for the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.
May
27
comment What are the Implications of Bell's Theorem?
And somehow, despite me getting on my knees, desperately trying to get people, some of whom are very smart, to understand, you have not replied to my real question. If the outcomes of measurements don't reflect real properties (and it is true that they don't. That's Bell's theorem), then how do you account for the perfect correlations when the same property is measured on the photons, e.g. how can Tom and Jerry always give the same answer when asked the same question if they didn't agree ahead of time on answers?
May
27
asked What are the Implications of Bell's Theorem?
Mar
9
answered What combinations of realism, non-locality, and contextuality are ruled out in quantum theory?
Mar
1
comment How does Bell's theorem rule out the possibility of local hidden variables?
@ G. 't Hooft: You don't think it's possible to have a non-local theory of relativity? I mean Einsteinian relativity, not the relativity of Lorentz where there is a hidden preferred frame. So, can we have non-locality and preserve Einstein's insights? You seem to say this is impossible. I'm not so sure.