One guy says:
I don't think 0:32 anything is sacred. it's just it's not 0:35 religion./. right this is science.Okay, but this is just wrong:
what John Bell proved is that there 7:32 are certain constraints on what any 7:34 theory can predict and quantum theory 7:38 violates those constraints and more 7:40 importantly in the lab you violate those 7:43 constraints that's what the Nobel Prize 7:45 was given for two years ago was 7:47 experiments demonstrating violations of 7:49 Bell's inequality. so I don't even think 7:51 it's an open question whether something 7:53 goes faster than light. we know that 7:56 there's causation that's faster than 7:58 light. how you implement that cleanly and 8:01 mathematically is another question and 8:03 that nobody's worked out quite yet and 8:06 it may be that in working that out we 8:08 will have to abandon or certainly deeply 8:10 modify the picture of space and time 8:13 given by general relativity.No, the consensus is that nothing goes faster than light. Especially not causation. And they certainly did not give a Nobel Prize for showing anything faster than light in the lab.
Later on, he correctly points out that Michelson-Morley experiment had multiple interpretations, and did not directly measure the speed of light. He needs to apply that same thinking to the Bell experiments, and admit that they have multiple interpretations.
Michelson-Morley must have seemed unremarkable, except to people like Maxwell, who followed aether theories. The Bell experiments were even less remarkable, as they only confirmed what the theory had predicted for 50 years.
Dr. Bee rambles on how the present might be caused by the future, instead of the past:
I find it curious that quantum physics is even compatible with this teleological interpretation. 4:49 It suggests to me that our idea of causes coming before effects might be somewhat of 4:54 a bias based on our personal experience, and maybe not a fundamental property of nature.That would also be causation going faster than light. It is going so fast that it goes backwards in time!
You can say nothing is sacred, and be open to new ideas. But any causation from the future, or from anything outside the light cone, would be bizarre and contrary to our whole scientific worldview. We have no evidence for it. And if we did, we would not know what to do about it. Anyone who proved it would deserve a Nobel Prize. It has not happened.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI often see all manor of thought experiments where the physicists like to muck about with time, treating it like a mechanical alarm clock they can move the arms around are to make it go any direction they like, and pretend that is time. it isn't even remotely.
ReplyDeleteI call this 'The Dr. Who problem'. The Doctor basically IS the clock of all creation, as the rest of the universe only makes sense causality wise if seen from the Doctor's own linear time which only moves in one direction, forward, no matter how much he skips around like a memory pointer in the program code, things change only when it interacts with him moving things about where otherwise things would remain fixed eternally, as everything has already happend. Even while traveling to the past, the Dr's own internal time moves forward one second per second, regardless of how he moves about through all creation in any increment he likes.
Physicists pretend the are much like the Doctor. They also like to pretend that imagining themselves moving the arms backwards somehow demonstrates some property of how time works and is a useful perspective. It isn't. The entire concept of the future impacting the past only makes sense from the perspective of humans pretending they can observe outside of time yet mysterious as their removal from time itself, somehow have their own internal time that STILL only moves forward despite being outside of time as they magically observe everything as one 'all at once' object they can move their magical 'observer point' (think of a c# memory pointer) around in, and then say, VOILA, look, I can just follow the future backwards and call it causation. This perspective is not possible outside of imagination, and therefore, is useless as science, it also evades the fact that the observer in the 'thought problem' is still ALWAYS moving forward in time at all times, even when pretending to be capable of observing the future by moving their point of observation around in the light cone.
If your model of time depends upon a god like observer outside of time itself, yet in their own meta time to make up for the fact your model can't work without it, then dump it.