On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 10:28 AM, David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote:
> Harry, I suspect that light reaching the Earth from a far distant star > would not be expected to travel in a straight line. It is well known that > light bends as it passes through a medium and it seems reasonable to assume > that the dust and gas between the us and that star would ensure that this > happens. I visualize the pencil placed within a glass of water and recall > how dramatic this can be. > > I am not sure what your point is since stellar aberration due to the motion of Earth around the Sun is detectable. > If you desire to poison your cat, perhaps you can adjust the emission > angle slightly. It is not obvious how the target would appear to the > source moving at right angles to the path. Your example might make more > sense if you look into that issue in detail. Also, are you assuming that > this experiment is taking place in a vacuum? > > Dave > The paper assumes that Einstein's light clock (on which all of special relativity is based) needs light to propagate as spherical wave, but I think this assumption is unnecessary, so it means his relativistic Shrödinger's cat paradox is a non-sequitur. However, I believe the primary conclusion of the paper still holds whether or not Einstein's light clock makes use of spherical waves of light or rays of light: <<In classical Physics, a mathematical description of a phenomenon always lays on a physical model. In the case of the SRT, in spite of the simple mathematical model involved, the contrary to experience consequences of the light postulate make it often difficult to conceive adequate physical models for the various relativistic effects. Probably because of this reason, most expositions of the SRT are based on algebraic demonstrations, but lack adequate “physical” explanations, that should instead be the basis of every physical theory about the macrocosmic world, as well as an indispensable element to any possible analysis or confutation. The case of the stellar aberration is emblematic. The algebraic route, consisting in the application of the SRT transformation to the system of the star and to that of the observer, does not apparently lead to contradictions. But the underlying physical model, based on a radial light radiation (light clock model), turns out to be incompatible with the parallel starlight irradiation actually reaching the Earth. The fact that the stellar aberration can instead be easily explained by assuming an addition/subtraction of c and v, or more generally, a not constant velocity of light (discussed by Marmet9, Selleri & Puccini10, Schulz Poquet11 and others), seems to be a strong proof against the postulate of the c constancy.>> harry > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: H Veeder <[email protected]> > To: vortex-l <[email protected]> > Sent: Sun, Mar 16, 2014 2:12 am > Subject: [Vo]:A relativistic Shrödinger's cat > > From the appendix of the paper "Stellar Aberration: the Contradiction > between > Einstein and Bradley" > > http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V14NO2PDF/V14N2RUS.pdf > > > Apeiron, Vol. 14, No 2, April 2007 111 > © 2007 C. Roy Keys Inc. — http://redshift.vif.com > > Appendix I: A relativistic Shrödinger’s cat > > The spherical light propagation for all inertial observers imposed > by the light postulate, besides being incompatible with the observed > stellar aberration effect (as showed in this article), gives rise to the > following paradox. Let us imagine a slightly modified version of the > relativistic light clock, in which the wave source is a laser, and thus > capable of emitting light not in a radial way, but in one single > direction. > Furthermore, imagine that along this direction, at a distance D > from the source, there is a detector capable of releasing, if hit by a > light pulse, a lethal gas in a box which contains a cat (Fig.7). > > At a given instant, the laser emits a light pulse towards the > detector. According to an observer at rest with respect to this device, > the light pulse reaches the detector after a time D c , and the cat dies. > But according to an observer in perpendicular motion relative to > the velocity of the light pulse, on the basis of the light postulate the > light pulse does not reach the detector, because in the time this pulse > travels the distance D, the detector has changed its place, travelling a > distance vt, and, in absence of a radial emission, no spherical wave > front can reach it. Therefore, according to the observer in motion, the > cat does not die. We are therefore now facing a similar result to that > obtained in the famous thought experiment conceived by Shrödinger > to disprove Quantum Mechanics.† In fact, on the basis of the > principles of the SRT, two observers do not view the same event at > two different times (relativity of simultaneity), but view two different > events, that is, two different realities! The Shrödinger paradox is > usually solved by appealing to the inapplicability of Quantum laws to > macrocosm systems, instead ruled by the entropy law. Our relativistic > paradox takes instead place entirely in the macrocosmic world, and > therefore a superposition of contradictory macroscopic events cannot > be avoided. But simply because of this reason, it turns out to be > unacceptable. > > ------- > > Harry > > > > >
