[ExI] QT and SR

[Lee Corbin]

Mike writes

> John K Clark wrote:
> 
> > Also, when you hear the term "same frame of reference" it usually
> > refers to an inertial frame of reference, but this one is accelerating
> > so you have to be careful;  then you can have all sorts of pseudo
> > forces operating WITHIN the frame, like tides. For example,
> > General Relativity tells us that rockets firing their engines is equivalent
> > to them falling in a gravitational field. If they were falling toward
> > a Neutron Star the lower one would be a little closer to the star
> > and so puller a little faster than the one above and so the string
> > would break even though some might say they are in the same frame
> > of reference. 

This was okay (except maybe it lacked a stiffer criticism of the idea
of being in the same reference frame under those conditions) but it
doesn't hold a candle to John's superb disposal of the Bell Spaceship
Paradox. (I append his explanation, more concise and simple than
any I've seen, to this email.)

> Since this is all theoretical anyway... I'd like to introduce the answer
> that as these collections of spaceships, strings, molecules, atoms, etc
> approach the speed of light the number of reference frames exceeds
> the computational ability of the universe to "render" a consistent result.

Well, you certainly get a "A" for imagination!  I wonder if your observation
implies anything about the chances of us being run on a deterministic
digital computer. 

> From some vantage point(s) there is a breakage, some there is not

I don't think that this can in any way be the case.  Either the string
breaks, and the pieces can become separated arbitrarily far, or
else it doesn't. The nearest, in my opinion, that reference frames 
enter into it is that two observers may be talking about different
points in time (and be thereby temporarily confused), one seeing
the string before it broke, and one after.

>  - after some lag there is un-breakage explained away by "wave
> collapse" or some other QM magic.

Another great idea!  From our new POV you've provided, not
only can questions be un-asked, but strings can un-break, along
with QM driven reversals of all sorts.  It's fantastic.  But quite
mind-bending.

> Please feel free to school me for talking out of turn.

Nonsense.  C'est impossible.  Turns?  :-)   As for me,
I'll feel free to display my own ignorance on everything
from simple electronic circuits to literary criticism. 

Lee
____________________________________________

John Clark wrote:

If I tacked a string inside the cockpit of my accelerating spaceship
from the front to back the string would NOT break because the 
atoms and electromagnetic fields inside the string would shrink at
the same rate as the atoms in the cockpit walls. However if I tied
a string from the front of my spaceship to the back of another 10
feet ahead of mine and accelerating at the same rate, the string 
would break because the atoms in the sting would shrink just as 
they did before but there is nothing else between the two 
spaceships to counterbalance that effect, there is only empty space.