Isaac Newton: January 4, 1643 - Dec 25, 1642 Galileo's inertia, F = ma, action<=>reaction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_priority_dispute http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0143-0807/37/4/045601 "The main interest of the 1895 LT for present teaching of SR, in particular at an undergraduate level, is that they are much simpler than the 1904 LT (no factors Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! or hyperbolic functions, no necessity to separate components of Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! parallel and orthogonal to Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! but that they are nevertheless quite sufficient to address the standard issues of SR." Hermann Minkowski: June 22, 1864 - January 12, 1909 4D spacetime intervals, Mink rotation, simultanaeity without quantum entanglement Henrik Lorentz: 18 July, 1853 - 4 February, 1928 x, t => x',t'; relativistic length contraction, time dilation "Galilean relativity" is basically NO transformation: x,t <=> x',t'; no change from classical Euclidean geometry, and this was not due to Galileo, who only worked out a t^2 dependence for falling projectiles. I do know better than to suggest there should be a schizm between math and physics. I understand perfectly that you cannot do physics without the tools provided by math. But there is really nothing in math that can protect physics from an onslaught of math that is riddled with inconsistencies that are bound to crop up because there is a disconnect with the bindings of mathematical models to physical reality. I have no good solution to this either, other than to direct mathematicians to go back to their respective quantum computers, supercomputers, Promethian boards, or white boards or chalk boards, or paper and pencil, or calculators, or slide rules, or abaccuses, or knotted strings, or fingers and toes, and work it out. Don't forget to check your work occasionally. The fact that there exists a relativity priority dispute speaks volumes of something that is not pseudoscience. Math can be correctly applied and erroneously misapplied to a lot of things. All of this applies to the thread "observers" for two reasons: 1) relativity, with or without Mink simultanaeity, is observer dependent. 2) quantum entanglement, "spooky" action at a distance, was left out of relativity chiefly because of Minkowski. This brings the relativity priority dispute into play. Birgit Dopfer's 1998 entanglement double slit experiment demonstrates both the failings of Mink simultanaeity in regard to quantum entanglement, and the dependence of the instantaneous experimental result on the direction (focusing lens) chosen for the "observed" slit, independent of the physical separation between photons entangled by this method. The instant communication between entangled photons in the form of entanglement state changes occur faster than a beam of photons can propagate between them. This violates Minkowski's edict that no two events may ever be simultaneous in all inertial reference frames. Instantaneous communication is possible via quantum entanglement so long as the points between which you wish to arrange instant communication are already connected by means of beams of quantum entangled photons. I deny that there is any pseudoscience involved in this, nor that the speed of must light must necessarily be breached in order for this to happen. "Faster", "slower" than light is also relative. As long as the underlying quantum field is entangled everywhere, simultanaeity has meaning not found in Minkowski relativity. The thread has come a long way. It is a more than moderately complex issue, understanding an observer's role in spooky action at a distance. This post is a recap, or if you listen to Q-reeus, "crap".
Stop pontificating. You have no way of knowing that entanglement violates SR. For a very, very good reason--you can't set up an experiment that confirms information is communicated when you measure entangled states. You can't postulate a thought experiment either (it would be placed under arrest by the thought police). But, measurements of entangled photons give random results. How is a random result a communication? Is it like: "I might wire that money to you, or maybe I won't", or "If there are any tapes, I might let you know" . . . ? By continuing to claim you know something nobody else does, you don't look very scientific, you look more like a crank: ("I alone understand the problem", etc).
It seems then that no one has the answer at this time, except for some statistical evidence. Which gives me the courage to ask a few more questions, a thought experiment, if you will. Barring all other considerations: a) can a perfectly balanced see-saw be considered an entangled system in a zero state? b) if this see-saw is a 1000 miles in total length, will it still be an entangled system? c) if I push down one end of this see-saw by say, 1 inch, how long would it take for the other end to receive this information and rise by exactly 1 inch?
No, I don't think so. Never was. However long it takes for the speed of sound for that material to travel 1000 miles, I believe.
a) No b) moot c) Ballparking things at 1500 kilometres and 300,000k/s, .005 seconds minimum. If the information is being transmitted as quickly as possible, and the seesaw is powered somehow (so you don't have to wait for the force transmission).
By pushing down you are applying a force on a rigid body, this force creates a torsion in the sea saw and the other end lifts, the point is transmission of this force effect to lift the other end. That would require finite time and cannot exceed c. You are probably enthused by occasional visuals of seasaw in entertainment parks wherein the other side appears to go up instantly. The key is transmission of force effect which classically requires finite time.
Why do you raise your BP by expecting that Mods will intervene and correct the situation? This site is more or less intellectually orphaned at least in science section, Rpenner and James R knew something about science and they seem to be on holidays, so who else can intervene. Even otherwise they too very rarely could resolve the issues. Kittamarus will come and ban you without understanding the context but they are not equipped to handle science.
So you are saying that the see-saw bends as it transfers the information? But I qualified the thought experiment as "barring all other considerations" such as losing rigidity and symmetry. I even bolded it to make part of the thought experiment. It seems you have chosen to ignore this qualification in the thought experiment. My thought see-saw is unalterably rigid and maintains it's perfectly straight shape at all times.
Please, give me break . So you are proposing that simultaneity of entanglement is impossible? I'll let you hassle that out with more learned minds than mine.
The system you describe is not entangled. No such system is entangled. Imagine the seesaw were a beam of light shining thorough a hole at the pivot, so that moving one end up and down moved the target point down and up. That's as tightly connected by as rigid a beam as is possible.
Well, after a little digging, I found my example explained by a real scientist; http://www.scienceofthelostsymbol.com/Entanglement-and-Nonlocality.html
Playful... He is not talking about the lifting up of other side of seasaw.. He is explaining it for lay understanding.
This site you link to is unbelievable bilge. "A real scientist" indeed! What scientist? This site is about a novel by that utter wanker Dan Brown. "Noetic Science" seems to be bordering on bogus. I cannot find any real findings from it that have advanced scientific understanding of the world in any way. But it's a great umbrella for charlatans promoting woo to shelter under. This is perfect example of Quantum Woo, in which people with no understanding blither on about "entanglement" in all sort of ridiculous contexts.
So what did you learn? Note that the "scientist" explicitly removed the seesaw itself - the physical connection - like this: That's critical. If you have a physical connection like a seesaw beam, that physical connection is subject to all standard physical law and theory - including relativity theory, which establishes a speed limit on the transfer of information along that connection. 300,000 km/s, to be specific. In addition, if you have two physical ends of a seesaw, and you know what state each is in, they are not entangled. They are each in separately defined and measured positions. Their wave functions have "collapsed", in that sense.
Indeed, and then went on to explain that you could take the seesaw away altogether, but the "correlation" between two entangled particles would remain the same. If one goes "up" (or reverses spin), the other necessarily goes "down" (or reverses spin) at the same time. They remain "correlated". Those few paragraph confirmed and increased my layman's intuitive understanding of the fundamental arguments about entanglement. As did this simple illustration; Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! http://physicsandphysicists.blogspot.com/2015/04/quantum-entanglement-for-dummies.html I could argue that your post makes no sense, because you spelled the word "seesaw" incorrectly. Do you see what I mean? Doesn't add much to understanding each other does it? btw. English is my second language. Instead of generously accepting any inadvertent errors I made in presenting the abstract analogy, there was no effort to even try and understand this layman's playful "thought experiment". All I received was immediate rejection and dismissal, except for Karenmansker, who made an effort to understand and actually "saw" what I was trying to convey.
