A Model For Eliminating / Confirming Time Dialation

Ok, yeah, it sounds crazy to all of you, but here it is, feel free to poke holes:

The way I see time dialation issues is due to our clocks and using light and the distance traveled as a clock. However, there is a clock that can be made to keep time THE SAME in a stationary refrence frame and one at relativistic speed. It involves quantum entanglement.

Develop a series of pairs of quantum entangled particles: A&B, C&D, E&F, ...
(where A&B are entangled, C&D are entangled, etc.)

Then separate them so that in a stationary clock A,C,E,... will remain. Send B,D,F,etc... away in a rocket at relativistic speed. Now the way the clock works.. at regular intervals, make a change to A,C,E, in order... that will be the ticks of the clock. At the same time, since entanglement has been observed to be instantenous, B,D,F will be changed the moment their stationary partners will. This provides a clock inside the relativistic rocket that ticks at the same time the stationary clock ticks. This setup eliminates all the effects of the light clock thought experiment. What do you think are the consequences???

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Mmmmm......interesting........ I can't see much wrong with it anyway!!!

Maybe there is something to do with the fact that there IS no instantaneous between 2 frames. When scientists refer to instantaneity as regards entanglement, I presume they are referring to 1 F.O.R.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Something I would like to add that I just realized as well... People are going through loops (hehe, pun not intended) to combine relativity and quantum mechanics. My clock uses quantum mechanics to try to solve relativity issues. I'm gonna try to see where this takes me.. wish I knew more about both

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Here is the first consequence of the Quantum Entangled Clock Experiment.

Time Dilation and the Light Clock using QEC:

Starting with principles of special relativity:

1. principle of relativity – the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference
2. light postulate – the speed of light in an inertial frame of reference is independent of the source

Consider the following setup. There is a Quantum Entangled Clock (black square) attached to a mirror. The other half of the Quantum Entangled Clock is on a mirror moving away at relativistic speed. The mirrors remain at a constant distance L from another mirror, which is parallel to the first. Since the speed of light in an inertial frame of reference is independent of the source, each arrow represents the distance the light traveled during one “tick” of the Quantum Entangled Clock.

QELC diagram

The above is my version of the classic Light Clock, which I will call the Quantum Entangled Light Clock (QELC). Let S represent the frame of reference in which the Light Clock is at rest. Let “t” be equal to the number of “ticks” of the QEC. “t” is therefore the time between the two events defined as:

Event 1: Light is emitted

Event 2: Light is detected.

as measured in S.

What we will find is that for the stationary clock it takes 4 “ticks” for the light to make the round trip and reach event 2. The moving clock in this case will take 5 “ticks” for the light to make the round trip and reach event 2. What are the consequences of this result?

Here are some options:

1. Quantum Entanglement does not exist.
2. Speed of light slows down in a moving reference frame.
3. Speed of light increases if we are going to say that moving clock should experience 4 ticks.
4. Because the inertial reference frames are now correlated, some weird quantum mechanical effect is taking place due to that correlation.
5. We can actually tell who is at rest and who is moving. Because it does not matter who’s ticks we use for the baseline to run the other clock off of, the light in the moving clock will take more ticks to reach event 2.

 

I disagree, and here is why. I still think that simultaneity will be relative, as you describe (at a first glance at least, i reserve the right to change my mind later

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

). However, that is due to the limit of the speed of light. In the above clock experiment, simultaneity due to light speed has no effect, because the information between the stationary clock and the moving clock is exchanged via entanglement, which has no speed limit. Do you disagree that for the moving clock, in my setup, the clock will "tick" 5 times before event 2 happens? The simltaneity of the clock "ticks," I feel, is different from the simultaneity as defined by light speed. Do you agree? Disagree? Could you explain why the two simultaneities should be the same?

 

Ok, I'll study the math and shall return with a more mathematical formulation

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Well James R, what about this report relating to simultaneity of quantum entanglement???

Quantum correlation with moving beamsplitters in relativistic configuration

ANDRE STEFANOV, HUGO ZBINDEN, NICOLAS GISIN and ANTOINE SUAREZ*

Group of Applied Physics, University of Geneva, 1211 Geneva 4, Switzerland

*Center for Quantum Philosophy, P.O. Box 304, CH-8044 Zurich, Switzerland

Abstract. We present a recent experiment [1] using space-like beamsplitters in motion revealing a new feature of quantum nonlocality: The correlations caused by two-particle quantum entanglement are not only independent of distance (as we already know from the conventional Bell-type experiments) but also independent of the time-ordering between the two single-photon measurements. Hence, it seems impossible to cast them in any real time ordering and maintain a causal explanation in which an earlier event influences a later one by arbitrarily fast communication.

Keywords. Quantum correlations; special relativity.

PACS Nos 03.65.Ud; 03.65.Ta; 42.50.Ar

 

Fallen Angle,

Damn, I think I could hear a pin drop in here.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Here is a link to the center.
http://www.quantumphil.org/

Here is a link to a paper:
http://www.arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0311/0311004.pdf

 

In general yes. I did read it.

 

Did your question have any bearing on the inclusion of "psi" as part of their references? If so I noted that.

 

So after relativity, Mac is gonna attack quantum mechanics now ? This is gonna be fun, I wanna make sure I have front row seats!

The paper starts out fishy (center for philosophy ... bohmian mechanics...). Let me read it in more detail before I comment on it

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

 

The paper doesn't attack Quantum Mechanics. It does show SR's simultaniety is
not correct. If QM is to survive, it has to drop relativity's timelines, its frames of
reference. No surprise to me. That is, unless you want to accept Beauregards violation
of causality and things happening in the past, the 'psi' crap and telepathy.

 

As I already suspected, the paper refered to above is ... dubious to say at least.

First of all, the author seems to be under the impression that quantum mechanics "... says nothing conditional probabilities expressing the dependence between the outcomes". This is not correct: conditional probabilities naturally enter through initial conditions in QM, and knowledge of a measurement result earlier in time conditions possible results at later times (of the same system, but keep in mind that entangled photons are to be described as one system).

There are problems with the conditional probabilities relating outcomes of experiments at several times. I refer to Penrose's The Emperor's New Mind (p356 and following in the 1989 edition) for a laymen's description (even though Penrose is also not entirely correct, but maybe I'll come back to that later).

The rest of the paper is a huge advertisement for the "multisimultaneity" interpretation of quantum mechanics, proposed by the author.

I have some problems with that interpretation; it uses relativistic arguments, and hence should be considered to be more of a "quantum field theory" interpretation than ordinary quantum mechanics ... which makes it quite unique since (usually?) nothing is said about measurements in "higher" quantum theories.
I am also not sure if scientists should tackle the multi-observer non-local entanglement effects, if none of the individual components is very well understood by conventional quantum mechanics, but this is more a gut feeling than an argument.
What I find lacking is an example or a small calculation which support the arguments of the author. He formally talks about some probability P(σ|&rho

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

without properly defining it, he does not speak about the equation(s) that this probability obeys, ... I suspect it is kept deliberately vague.
And finally, the words

seem like a huge contradiction in itself (there are experiments that he uses, even though he admits what he proposes is unmeasureable?). It also clearly shows that one should place what he says in the proper context; it is philosophy and not science (and I must admit that I have already heard many outrageous claims by philosophers).

I also doubt that Bell used the conditional probability P(σ|&rho

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

to express the entanglement between the particles, but I'll have to look up his original 1964 article to confirm this.

Well, that is my impression after a quick (60minute) read. I am a bit curious about what others with a background in quantum mechanics and/or field theory think about the text.

Bye!

Crisp

 

Good morning Crisp.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Actually I didn't attack anything. I merely provided links to the refrenced material. You should have also noted my comment to James R. and that I recognized the dubious or questionable content.

Toward the end I got the impression they were past the fringes of verifiable physics.

 

this is the actual article i was referring to

http://www.physik.fu-berlin.de/~simons/Publikationen/quant-ph_0210015v1.pdf

 

first they describe their setup, and then in part IV. Multisimultaneity, they describe how multisimultaneity does not agree with experiment, and that there is quantum correlation irrespective of time ordering of the events.

even if there is an actual time dialation in different inertial reference frames, then theoretically, we can still set up an experiment that will determine the reference frame that is at absolute rest. we can continually move one of the clocks and compare the number of ticks between event 1 and 2 (see the light clock setup at beginning). the frame of reference with less ticks is more at rest than the other, or slower. this can be continued until no other reference frame is more at rest, that is, until we find the slowest reference frame, the stationary one. and if this setup is possible, is there a simpler way of writing down the laws of physics once one knows the inertial reference frame that is at absolute rest?