Is simultaneity probabilistic?

[oakley1812]

Hi, all.

I expect to be ridiculed, but hey, why not?!

Maybe the victim can be gunned down before the shot is fired.

It's a unification of relativity and quantum physics.

[Endy0816]

What do you mean by probabilistic?

[oakley1812]

5 minutes ago, Endy0816 said:

What do you mean by probabilistic?

Thanks for your reply.:)

I mean there's only a chance of finding the fatal shot where you look for it,

[Strange]

 

 

Quote

Is simultaneity probabilistic?

No.

Simultaneity is  part of relativity, which is a classical theory. So I'm not sure why this is in quantum theory. Do you mean something different by simultaneity?

[studiot]

10 hours ago, oakley1812 said:

Hi, all.

I expect to be ridiculed, but hey, why not?!

Maybe the victim can be gunned down before the shot is fired.

It's a unification of relativity and quantum physics.

So far no one has ridiculed you, though you have been asked for more detail.

 

A short answer is that yes in some circumstance there are (serious) applications of probability to the physics of time.

For instance given the probability of the radioactive decay of an atom in a bunch of atoms, you can calculate the probability of simultaneous decay of 2,3 or more atoms.
You can also discuss the meaning of simultaneous in terms of the time taken and the uncertainty principle.

For a longer answer you need to propose a less flippant example.

Edited December 4, 2017 by studiot

[oakley1812]

On 04/12/2017 at 9:13 PM, studiot said:

So far no one has ridiculed you, though you have been asked for more detail.

 

A short answer is that yes in some circumstance there are (serious) applications of probability to the physics of time.

For instance given the probability of the radioactive decay of an atom in a bunch of atoms, you can calculate the probability of simultaneous decay of 2,3 or more atoms.
You can also discuss the meaning of simultaneous in terms of the time taken and the uncertainty principle.

For a longer answer you need to propose a less flippant example.

 

Thanks for your kind consideration.

I really don't know how to be less flippant in this case. It's just something badgering me in my halfway to a hopeful degree.

sorry

Jason

[studiot]

16 hours ago, oakley1812 said:

 

Thanks for your kind consideration.

I really don't know how to be less flippant in this case. It's just something badgering me in my halfway to a hopeful degree.

sorry

Jason

Well if this was a serious question and you want serious discussion how about also responding to my serious Physics comment?

After all you have posted in quantum physics.

[oakley1812]

31 minutes ago, studiot said:

Well if this was a serious question and you want serious discussion how about also responding to my serious Physics comment?

After all you have posted in quantum physics.

Well, the way I see it is: If the chances  of finding a particle-wave are uncertain and there is no hidden variable, why can't  we ask if simultaneity is like that also.

I'm sorry if I don't make sense, I am trying to be as good as the likes of you but I'm still learning(especially my algebra).

thanks

jason

[Strange]

4 minutes ago, oakley1812 said:

Well, the way I see it is: If the chances  of finding a particle-wave are uncertain and there is no hidden variable, why can't  we ask if simultaneity is like that also.

Simultaneity is about the relative timing of events as seen from different frames of reference. This is a classical (non-quantum) theory and just assumes that there is a reliable way of detecting the events. 

If you are gong to introduce the problem of detecting single photons from the events, then this is not really about simultaneity but is closer to just a practical measurement problem. It won't change the relative simultaneity, but could just change whether you are able to detect it or not.

(If I have understood you correctly...)

[oakley1812]

19 minutes ago, Strange said:

Simultaneity is about the relative timing of events as seen from different frames of reference. This is a classical (non-quantum) theory and just assumes that there is a reliable way of detecting the events. 

If you are gong to introduce the problem of detecting single photons from the events, then this is not really about simultaneity but is closer to just a practical measurement problem. It won't change the relative simultaneity, but could just change whether you are able to detect it or not.

(If I have understood you correctly...)

Thanks, Strange.

That makes sense, thanks for clearing my bad speculation up.

[strangerthanu]

On 04/12/2017 at 12:37 AM, oakley1812 said:

Hi, all.

I expect to be ridiculed, but hey, why not?!

Maybe the victim can be gunned down before the shot is fired.

It's a unification of relativity and quantum physics.

no , mercury ages less than earth