Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Steve Dufourny: on 6/30/16 at 8:54am UTC, wrote Hello ,perhaps it is just an effect of rotations ,clocks of quantum and...

DURGA DATTA.: on 6/30/16 at 8:39am UTC, wrote Do we exactly know that flow of time is in continuous progression or in...

Steve Dufourny: on 3/23/16 at 14:35pm UTC, wrote :) you are cool in fact ,a realjedi of the sphere ,I like :) we are all...

Joe Fisher: on 3/23/16 at 14:19pm UTC, wrote Dear Mr. Dufourny, Please join with me in singing the Peggy Lee song:...

Steve Dufourny: on 3/23/16 at 7:50am UTC, wrote Hi Mr Fisher, That is all? Could you develop please with physics.And what...

Joe Fisher: on 3/22/16 at 15:14pm UTC, wrote Dear Mr. Dufourny, My contention that all visible surfaces travel at the...

Steve Dufourny: on 3/21/16 at 16:27pm UTC, wrote well,still an illuminated wanting to give a course about universality, the...

Joe Fisher: on 3/21/16 at 15:52pm UTC, wrote Dear Mr. Dufourny, You have a real complete visible skin surface. Einstein...



FQXi FORUM
April 30, 2017

ARTICLE: Blurring Causal Lines [back to article]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Joe Fisher wrote on Mar. 1, 2016 @ 16:04 GMT
The real unique observable Universe am infinite. This is another utterly unrealistic article about supposedly finite invisible quantum quackery particle behavior. Visible material surface that can be seen with normal vision cannot possibly have a fundamental invisible construction that could only be understood by physicists.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate


Robert H McEachern wrote on Mar. 1, 2016 @ 20:44 GMT
"If we believe in the validity of quantum mechanical laws, and we believe in the validity of general relativity, we need to think of a situation in which the causal order is not well-defined..."

One can believe in the validity of the physical laws, while not believing in the metaphysical interpretations of those laws. It is only the standard interpretations of the laws, not the laws themselves, that are incompatible with causality and common-sense.

Rob mcEachern

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Mar. 2, 2016 @ 15:22 GMT
Rob,

Is Relativity a law or just a standard interpretation?

++++

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Mar. 2, 2016 @ 16:02 GMT
Dear Robert,

No matter in which direction a normal person looks, that normal person will only ever see a plethora of seamlessly enmeshed material surfaces. There are no invisible quantum particles in a real visible surface. Therefore, there cannot be any sensible valid finite quantum mechanical laws can there?

Dear Ekhard,

Visible material surface is not abstractly relative.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Mar. 18, 2016 @ 06:34 GMT
Rob,

Well, if you have an opinion, you will be better off hiding it. Bruckner published in "O. Oreshkov, F. Costa & C. Brukner, Nature Communications 3, Article number: 1092". While I didn't yet manage to access this paper for free, I was made aware of another paper in ncomms the abstract of which pretends confirming a holy cow while the results are valuable arguments against it, and the authors are aware of this. Otherwise, and in other prestigious journals they had perhaps little or no chance for publication.

Does "a situation in which the causal order is not well-defined" contradict to common sense? In some sense, I don't think so. Real nature, not the journal nature, doesn't define anything. The opposite of sense is nonsense.

As you will hopefully agree, non-causal theory is sometimes useful while dirty.

++++

report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Mar. 3, 2016 @ 15:19 GMT
The real unique visible Universe am infinite. Infinity cannot be accessed by real human thought, therefore, the term: “The team imagined what would happen if (abstract) Alice and (abstract) Bob each received a (invisible) particle from outside their (abstract) laboratories.’ Is utterly unrealistic.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Mar. 7, 2016 @ 15:56 GMT
How on earth could: “For instance, a quantum particle can be in multiple places at the same time; before it is observed, it exists in a superposition of each of these possible positions simultaneously.” There is only one real observable place and it is called here. Real here has a real observable surface. Real observable surface cannot possibly contain invisible atoms, composed of invisible particles.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Mar. 16, 2016 @ 16:32 GMT
Special or General Relativity Is Incompatible with Quantum Mechanics?

The myth is that only general relativity is incompatible with quantum mechanics but initiated Einsteinians know that "the root of all the evil" is special relativity:

Joao Magueijo, Faster Than the Speed of Light, p. 250: "Lee [Smolin] and I discussed these paradoxes at great length for many months, starting in...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Mar. 17, 2016 @ 14:50 GMT
Only visible reality is compatible, Invisible quantum particles do not, and cannot exist.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Mar. 17, 2016 @ 18:08 GMT
Special or General Relativity Is Incompatible with Quantum Mechanics? (2)

Perimeter Institute: "Quantum mechanics has one thing, time, which is absolute. But general relativity tells us that space and time are both dynamical so there is a big contradiction there. So the question is, can quantum gravity be formulated in a context where quantum mechanics still has absolute time?"

What a silly question! Newton's absolute time is true or false independently of any theory. If it is true, all future theories will have it. Theories involving Einstein's false relative time will be discarded and forgotten.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Mar. 18, 2016 @ 15:02 GMT
Visible reality is infinite. Infinity is not durational. Finite invisible time does not exist.

Joe Fisher

report post as inappropriate


Shaikh Raisuddin wrote on Mar. 17, 2016 @ 13:16 GMT
Causality can be cheated only by modification in the inertia of actors

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Mar. 17, 2016 @ 14:53 GMT
Visible reality does not have an invisible causality.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Mar. 18, 2016 @ 07:55 GMT
Hi,

I thought about the perpetual motion.It is linked with the natural gravitation , universal and the rotations of sphères of course.The perpetual motion is not possible when we are on earth with a gravitation correlated with mass of course, so the forces act on this motion in stopping it, logic.That said, in space it is totally different in zero gravity.Two revolutionary systems can be putinto experiments and practies.The international space station must insert the rotation of a kind of big Wheel for the checking of the intrinsic gravitation.It will imrpove the experiments in space.Furthermore this rotation of this space adapted Wheel can give energy ,the adds of ather wheels in space can be relevant consideribg this perpetual gravitation, this perpetual motion.The forcesof rotations of sphères dear friends ......The complexity returns to simplicity, the détails returns to generality......

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Mar. 18, 2016 @ 15:19 GMT
Any normal person can readily see that it is only real infinite illuminated visible surface that moves at the same constant speed. Light does not have a surface, therefore, light is always stationary. Einstein was utterly wrong when he tried to prove that finite objects moved at varying rates of finite speed and light moved at the same constant speed through an invisible vacuum.

Joe Fisher, Realist.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 18, 2016 @ 18:14 GMT
Mr Fisher,

I d like that you develop a little instead to always repeat the same things about Einstein having false.That has no sense to say that light is stationary.In fact,you confound a little the spirituality and the physics and its laws, deterministic and foundamental.I found where is your error.It is about the luminerous aether, you consider it like a vaccuum towards the infinite...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Mar. 21, 2016 @ 15:52 GMT
Dear Mr. Dufourny,

You have a real complete visible skin surface. Einstein had a real complete visible skin surface when he was alive. No matter in which direction you look, you will only ever see a plethora of real visible seamlessly enmeshed partial solid, liquid and vaporous surfaces. No matter in which direction Einstein looked when he was alive, he would have only been able to see the same mixture of visible surface. The only reason real surface can be seen is if it is illuminated, light therefore cannot have a surface. Please stop writing nonsense about invisible particles and invisible God.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate


DURGA DAS DATTA. wrote on Jun. 30, 2016 @ 08:39 GMT
Do we exactly know that flow of time is in continuous progression or in bits of Planck time ? The possibility of loosing causal for an effect can not be ruled out. As such quantum effects become probabilistic in nature.We should be doubtful about a super computer on such loosing information in quantum bits.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jun. 30, 2016 @ 08:54 GMT
Hello ,perhaps it is just an effect of rotations ,clocks of quantum and cosmological 3D sphères Inside this 3D universal sphere.The senseor rotation os gravitation seems correlated in a simplistic vue and it is irreversible entropically speaking.Now of course it is a tool with our relativity permitting to class our evolution in seeing simply our past more we go far in the analyse at two scales.We see our future with the cosmological scale and we study our past in analysing the steps towards the quantum central sphères,the coded gravitational quantum singularities.Now of course computing is a human invention.That said the probabilities and simulations are relevant when good parameters are inserted.Best Regards

report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.