Yup. I liked the section where he laid out naked assumptions that’s supposed to lead to why the speed of causality isn’t infinity and that the answer is found in whatever is bidirectional in the Lorentz transformation. Thing is about that, given those variables and no other, that works. And we’re certainly taking it as far as it can go. But, maybe it’ll turn out that Lorentz transformation isn’t enough for everything, just most things. You’re at the edges of knowledge and you need a finer grained metric than equating speed of light with speed of causality by plugging in knowns via the Lorentz transformation. Are we REALLY “breaking causality”? Or is the measuring stick not finely grained enough?

Yup. I liked the section where he laid out naked assumptions that’s supposed to lead to why the speed of causality isn’t infinity and that the answer is found in whatever is bidirectional in the Lorentz transformation.

Thing is about that, given those variables and no other, that works.

And we’re certainly taking it as far as it can go.

But, maybe it’ll turn out that Lorentz transformation isn’t enough for everything, just most things. You’re at the edges of knowledge and you need a finer grained metric than equating speed of light with speed of causality by plugging in knowns via the Lorentz transformation.

Are we REALLY “breaking causality”?

Or is the measuring stick not finely grained enough?

—–

Plainly, if you’re using light to see, you can’t see faster than light (EM).

But what if you’re using something else to see with? Since everything is tied into the speed of light, you won’t be able to know if it’s going faster as it’s beyond the limits that all of the calculations are tied into.

I *think* this is part of the issue they have in trying to tie relativity with quantum stuff.

======

 

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


6 × = six

Leave a Reply