Re: Duplication Thought Experiment Involving Complementarity

From: Russell Standish <>
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 14:44:36 +1000 (EST)

Brent Meeker wrote:
> Have a look at

I'm still having a little trouble with the argument. Going into page
24, we have operationally defined p, E and m (ie no necessarily equal
to the physical values).

On page 24, Stengar demonstrates the classical relativity

    E^2=p^2c^2 + m^2 c^4

and things like

    p -> mv, for v<<c ( where m is op. defined)

    E -> mc^2 + .5 mv^2

However, there is nothing stopping m being a nonlinear function of the
real mass of an object (nothing fixes the dimensions of p or E, for

If it could be demonstrated that the operationally defined m _must be_
proportional to the object's real mass, then the argument is clinched,
since all else are arbitrary constants.

This presentation is just a slightly more sophisitcated version of


A/Prof Russell Standish Director
High Performance Computing Support Unit, Phone 9385 6967, 8308 3119 (mobile)
UNSW SYDNEY 2052 Fax 9385 6965, 0425 253119 (")
Room 2075, Red Centre
            International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02
Received on Sun Sep 08 2002 - 21:52:13 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:07 PST