Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Example: To Yanniru

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Alan on June 28, 2002 03:43:47 UTC

Consider a traffic jam on a highway.

This may look like a density wave, like a compression wave, like a sound wave.

Suppose you are flying along above a long straight highway. You see cars travelling at speed, well spaced out. Further along the highway, the cars apear to be closer and travelling more slowly.

Eventually you reach a section of highway where the cars are very close and hardly moving; followed by a long section where they are stationary and 'nose to tail.' Flying on further, you reach a section where they are moving slowly again and a little spaced out. Flying over the highway further sees the cars increasingly spaced and moving faster; till you reach a stage where you see the cars are moving at full highway speed and well spaced.

Long after a crash on a highway has been cleared away; the above traffic jam pattern can persist. I have been in just such a traffic jam.

Over time, gradually the region of static vehicles would reduce; but initially the rate at which cars arrive at one end keeps replenishing the traffic jam as cars escape the other end.

This is reminiscent of a cloud known as a "lenticular " or wave cloud.

The cloud appears stationary downwind from a mountain range, making a 'hump' in airflow visible. Despite high winds, the cloud appears static. It is constantly growing into the wind, and dissipating on the side away from the wind.

Now, I can draw a "traffic jam" as a line of dots that are increasingly closely spaced in the center of the line, and increasingly spread out towards the ends.

Now, supose that, at right angles to this line, was another traffic-jam line that was been "carried" by one dot (or car) in the first line. What I'm saying is, imagine that a car has a position in two traffic-jam lines that are at right angles to each other (one of which you may consider 'imaginary'.

Then there are two ways of looking at the car. It is a dot in one line (zero-position spread) while simultaneously 'infinitely spread' on the other line (a wave).

Take two positions of the car on one line-traffic jam (call this 'an event'); and you have two positions on the superposed at-right-angles imaginary line. The Dirac delta function seems to describe this scenario. Between any two positions on one line, the car has described a curve if you plot its changing position on both lines, including the superposed at-right-angles line.

That is, a car travelling through two traffic jam deceleration/acceleration queues that are superposed at right angles; will describe a curve in superposition-space, so to speak.

There is a way of describing this curve: as soon as you hit zero (fixed position, no spread) in one line; you get infinity (you get: the other line shows up; the whole of the right-angles-line that passes through the zero-point).

But take two readings (= an event) and you get a finite structure being built up of the car's travels across both lines.

From here, you can build up a whole complex picture of superpositions showing Dr. Dick's claim "events have dimensions" and "a universal Dirac delta function" to be reasonable.
And electromagnetic waves fit this sceario neatly, it seems.

Also regarding "A way of looking AT a way of looking":

If I walk on a straight line past a letter-box;
from my perspective the letter box appears to rotate. Now, I read in "The Force Of Symmetry" by Vincent Icke (all about quantum mechanics) that the qm idea of "spin" involves a curious kind of relativity: like you cannot tell apart actual spin (rotation) of the letter box from apparant rotation caused by your walking past it.

Now, if the letter box were a person looking at you; it may have "a way of looking at you" that involves rotating so you are always in the center of its field of view. To the letter box; now you apear to be stationary, yet rotating.

But you may have a way of looking at the letter-box/person that makes it appear stationary but rotating due to your changing angle of view as you walk past. You would have to rotate as you walked for this. Of course it would apear to get smaller; but how do you distinguish in space, that there is relative sideways movement and who is rotating?

If either party may be rotating/ and/or moving sideways; how to separate out what is going on?
In real life we have other things to refer to to determine apparant-spin from actual spin; and who is moving in a straight line past who. But in qm, things sem to be rather entangled.

At the heart of qm, then apears to be "a way of looking at a way of looking"; from this concept it becomes much clearer just how to solve the EPR 'paradox' and the double-slit experiment.

Its all a question of entangled perspectives. As I see it, Dr. Dick is dramatically on the right track.

It should be possible to demonstrate by pure logic why he cannot be wrong in certain respects within certain limits.

Traditional relativity: "A" moves past "B"; or is it "B" moves past "A"? A signal travels from A to B to tell B what A is doing. It is via this signal, that "A" has "a way of looking at B".
So how can "B", as perceived via "signal", itself be a "way of looking"?

All you know about "B" is from the signal? So "B" is "a way of looking" at THE SIGNAL? "B" is an interpretation OF THE SIGNAL?

So "B" and "A" are projected from the relationship between them?

So relativity involves "a way of looking at B(looking at a projected hypothesis: B ?) via a way of looking at the signal?

Is "B" perceived, constructed like a hologram, via the interference patterns that project "B" from different ways of looking at the different ways of looking at hypothetical "B"?

Do you agree that Dr. Dick may be corrct re: Dirac delta function: he has complementary views of it. His view may be wider than physics, which is why physics is a subset of his wider view, so his paper can not be constrained into the regular restricted perspective on physics?

-dolphin

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2018 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins