Measuring the curvature of spacetime

Sigh.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If there is a reference on this, obviously I missed it.

I gave up on the idea of geometry as a convention in physics the moment I understood that Special Relativity was not joking when it proposed that lengths contracted due to relative motion. That was literally all that I needed to know about the solid geometry of Euclid from that moment on, which is to say, it did not inspire me to look for applications of solid geometry at rest that could be extended or applied to inertialess relativistic empty space the way the idea seems to have affected some people.

I'm sure that there are still plenty of applications of solid geometry at rest that make perfect sense in the world we inhabit, but the range of their validity is not expanded to include dynamics on quantum scales where tiny masses move close to the speed of light or on cosmic scales where large masses move at speeds closer to at rest. A more restricted paradigm for the domain in which geometry applies is a sensible compromise.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So, because you don't understand it, you reject it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Because he doesn't intend to understand it he gets to reject it. Or gets to pretend he's an authority on the subject he doesn't intend to understand. Crank analysis.

 

In a world that believes in giant tortoises, or Ptolemy, or reactionless thrust, or perpetual motion machines, I'm both happy and content to be regarded as a "crank".

You, who have taught yourself calculus would know better than I. Newton and Einstein were both the real deal, but Einstein's former calculus teacher was possibly the greatest crank who ever picked up a piece of chalk at a prestigious university. At least, I finally came to realize both why and how he did it.

But fortunately for you, and unfortunately for me and the rest of science, math, and humanity, folks just as gullible as me paid a lot of money and wasted a lot of brainpower and time to earn educational credit learning what basically was a load of Minkowski's fantasmagorical curved spacetime pseudoscientific crankery and B$. Irwin Corey (world's foremost expert) could not have pulled it off any better, or funnier.

You totally have my support. I wish I had my money back. I had thought I was paying for education, not entertainment. My mistake. If I was that gullible then, no wonder I became a crank. The shame is mine. Having a lot of company who will probably never figure it out doesn't make me feel much better about it.

 

Good argument. If something is possible then it will eventually become, should every possibility be exhausted (if THIS is possible.)

IF time-travel is possible then EVENTUALLY it will be discovered meaning they are here NOW! Where are they? There is either a world conspiracy regarding such people or it is impossible.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Is that a clip of Jimmy Saville?

 

I understand it only too well.

 

You are correct. He reminds me of that celebrity that quit his education because he believes that 1 x 1 = 2. He is so very convinced that he understands mathematics and geometry so much better than every other mathematician and physicist in the world that he understands that there is a serious problem with geometry. Of course, he can't actually demonstrate this problem, so he just insults every single mathematician and physicist rather than produce an argument.

It is funny, that he demonstrates a relatively new crank phenomenon: venerating Einstein rather than seeking to overthrow him. Most physics cranks think that Einstein made a horrible mistake with SR, but there are a handful that think that they are trying to restore the "true Einstein" against a legion of physicists conspiring to hide the truth.

In this case, the person is trying to save Einstein against mathematics that Einstein appreciated very much. It makes me a little sad.

 

I made the argument. Minkowski didn't know the simultanaeity of quantum entanglement from squat. For that matter, neither did Einstein. DO THE MATH. The 4D interval between entangled events is nonsense. Entanglement state changes happen faster than the propagation of light in a vacuum. This is a 21st century experimental result. So is Higgs.

Show me how you resolve the pole and barn paradox of special relativity with quantum entangled garage door openers. Go ahead. How hard could it be?

The problem can be easily resolved using Doppler shifts applied to the "wavelength" of the pole, but not at all using, or rather abusing, the relativity of simultanaeity.

It was Minkowski who richly deserved to be kicked in his simultaneity.

Sure, just ignore both results and go back to doing your 19th century math. Make a new theory of the luminiferous aether or something. Schmeltzer did.

 

Stringing together a bunch of insults and fake history do not make an argument. Even if you produced facts, you would have to also provide the connection between the facts and your point. You don't do that.

Nobody knows this. This seems to be something you made up, through some weird misunderstanding of quantum mechanics.

Events are not entangled, physical systems or subsystems are. When a measurement occurs is something that depends on coordinate choice. Since special relativity is consistent with quantum mechanics, you need to do some serious explaining as to where the standard approach to SR somehow fails with regard to entanglement.

One cannot use quantum entanglement to send a signal, so there can be no change to the standard pole-and-barn scenario if one also performed some kind of EPR experiment during the scenario. If one is describing an entanglement experiment where there is spatial separation, then which entangled particle is measured "first" depends on the choice of coordinates. If you think you can make some kind of super pole-and-barn scenario, then feel free to demonstrate in another thread.

Sure, in one reference frame, but not in all. You don't like the relativity of simultaneity, but we don't have to let your aesthetic principles guide our physics or metaphysics.

Again, you are quick to offer insults but you always fail to deliver argument.

 

You are just way behind the times. Quantum entanglement of photons has been used to "send a signal" numerous times in recent years. You might as well be living in the last century if you missed it, and in which case your responses would make sense. They don't. Happy New Year. It's about to be 2016.

 

Only in conjunction with other means and never a super-luminal signal. You are making up recent history if you think otherwise.

You are trying the crank tactic of changing the subject and ignoring substantive points. Congratulations.

 

A minimum 10k x superluminal in actual fact, distances over 10 km also. Researchers in China, Italy, and Austria.

 

http://phys.org/news/2009-05-austrian-breakthrough-quantum-cryptography-transmission.html

A number of other internet references to the technology of quantum entanglement communication seem to have been recently shut down or otherwise removed from search engine results here.

Excuse me, I too often forget when I am conversing with folks in other regions of the world, not all search engines in all countries provide equal access to certain research topics. And that's actually something else that often bugs me. It makes discussions such as these more difficult.

With entanglement communications technology as a potential ultra-secure communications application of public key encryption via satellite, it doesn't surprise me at all that this would be a sensitive area to research in some countries. The last thing I read, the Chinese tests of satellite public key encryption was already in the works. I somehow doubt they would go to all that trouble to investigate a technology that didn't work, even though we often do.

No wonder over half the world is still living in the stone age. Knowledge is power, and those who possess it are often reticent to part with any.

 

Who is Schmeltzer?

 

great link Cheezle.

 

Yep, I thought so also.
And probably ignored by our divine crank.

 

How do you measure something which has no physical reality ?

Ask any mainstream guy, any, he will say spacetime and spacetime curvature are mathematical artifacts and are not anything physical or real...they are used in the mathematical model of GR to describe the Gravity....If so, then, How and when actually this business of measuring spacetime curvature in physical reality started off ?? Who is the key man or group behind this systematic brainwash of people from all walks of life? Even people lacking formal education in Physics (2 admitted cases on this subforum and both actively present in this thread) are die hard fans of spacetime curvature, why and how ? It does not appear to be science, it has gotten the cult status.

 

Sounds a lot like a zen koan, or maybe just begging the question. Maybe both.