Mordred

No nothing of the sort. When I first started studying physics I for one hated relativity and didn't agree with the constancy of c. I like a great many others went out of our way to invalidate relativity. However that too is part of the scientific method, so my instructors supported my efforts. Physics isn't based on some popularity contest. In actuality it is based on testable evidence. You might actually be surprised at what kind of transforms it would take to agree with observational evidence with a Lorentz type eather that would agree with the M and M experiments or the far more refined and high experiments for one way/two way speed of light tests

For the record Swansont has a PH.D. So has a very good understanding of physics. Several of our members have similar backgrounds. Many of us have our own accredited backgrounds myself included. So you can bet those of us with various degrees in physics topics will consider mathematics an essential element of physics. Especially if those same mathematics have been extremely well tested against observational evidence. The other detail to consider is the postulates of SR are also mathematically defined. This leads in essence to Lorentz invariant and the various symmetry relations.

The signal will never exceed c there is no ftl communication entangled or not. Hence why entanglement for communication is only practical for encryption.

Just a side note the speed of light was determined prior to Einstein. I own a 1919 physics textbook that shows the same value. The textbook doesn't even mention relativity. It however covers Galilean relativity. The only known particles at the time was the photon, proton and electron.

Typically entanglement will involve a particle to particle interaction the most common method is particle pair creation such as through parametric down conversion using a beam splitter for photons. The probability correlation function can then be determined by applying the various conservation laws such as conservation of charge, energy momentum, lepton number, isospin, color, flavor etc. Entanglement can be used in communication for cryptology. However no communication exceeds c

Your very statements is your opinion. That should be obvious even to you. Secondly the math always comes first in any physics theory. It's the very essence of model building. It is literally the very first test of any hypothesis. It is also a step you should be taking . Mathematically prove the EFE or the Minkowskii field equations is wrong. Not simply declare they are. Show where your Hypothesis gives higher accuracy to explain the literal mountains of observational evidence. As The principles of GR and SR are two of the most rigidly tested theories we have. They have been so rigidly tested that the vast majority of all major Theories incorporate SR and GR. When any professional physicist tests a theory. That physicist isn't testing verbal descriptions. They are testing the mathematics. To see how accurately the mathematics makes predictions of effects from A causes B found in nature. It is literally the very essence of physics. The predictive power of the applied mathematics.

Well regardless of your opinion, the constancy of c is well tested. I'm positive you have heard that before. Seems you would rather ignore the mathematics or recognizing a paper doesn't need to cover commonly applied mathematics in that SR paper in a verbal descriptive. Quite frankly that's your hangup not mine. The resultant time dilation due to the speed limit of information exchange is so well tested that none of our opinions truly matter lmao. So regardless of opinions of any forum or forum members the mathematics of SR and GR obviously work how they are verbally described is simply interpretations. So railing because such and such paper doesn't verbally describe something to conform to your opinion is meaningless. It also seems to me your arguments are more in line with metaphysical arguments and they bore me. Always have always will. If the mathematics accurately describe a theory. I don't bother with verbal descriptives

He didn't need to his use of reference frames was established with Galilean relativity. He incorporated those mathematics in the paper. So he chose not to waste time describing the obvious inherent in the mathematics. Think of it this way papers you read today don't point out every detail not when those details are in established formulas. Galilean relativity was very well established. When you get down to it the gamma terms for the Lorentz transforms are a simple extension.

Well ways to interpret that paragraph. Often doesn't imply always. The convulsion can also prevent you from letting go of a live conductor. AC will cause muscle spasms so your more likely be able to let go. From personal experience of having felt both at 20 and higher Amp services. I'd much rather be hit with AC. Trust me you can feel the difference. Regardless both are highly dangerous. Both can cause serious injury or death if they aren't carefully handled.

Light cone barrier? A light cone doesn't involve its own signals. In the case of the EH the particle undergoes a wide range of inference. Prime example being the gamma ray accretion jets that result from infalling matter.

DC is actually considered more dangerous. High DC amps can literally blow a hole through you. Also with AC you have a chance in letting go of a conductor not so much with DC. Either way it's the AMPS that kills

Think of it this way Hoola, an entangled particle is entangled by a probability function. When one particle changes state it does not cause the other to change state. You can merely make predictions of state of the other particle by measuring the state of one of the pairs. Once a measurement is made the superposition wavefunction collapses. So you cannot measure prior to sending a particle into the Bh. It's also highly unlikely the particle will not lose its entangled state due to the interference from the BH accretion disk.

BRST quantization aka Faadev Popoff Ghosts https://saalburg.aei.mpg.de/wp-content/uploads/sites/25/2017/03/henneaux.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/1407.7256.pdf appears to be the most common method of renormalization with regards to quantum gravity.

First off you an start by describing what your dilemma actually is with SR. Describe that in detail. If you have a proposed solution you can post your ideas following the rules with the speculation forum. Note this will likely require some mathematics as testability of any theory is one of the requirements of a theory. here are the guidelines https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/86720-guidelines-for-participating-in-speculations-discussions/ https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/22442-so-youve-got-a-new-theory/ first 24 hour of posting has a 5 post limit, this is a site antispam measure. Once 24 hours have elapsed then there is no daily post limit. The reputation system is simply that, Its largely meaningless and simply gives an indication of trust in how a poster responds or generates posts. Its easily turned around from a low rep to a high rep without too much effort.

SR is quite easy to fathom and grasp, as Swansont above pointed out.

there is nothing incorrect regarding the light clock used to describe time dilation on signal rate change. When you get right down to it gravitational redshift is a direct example.

Keep in mind you cannot simply declare your using this. These tensors contain critical details at each entry. How they are used in flat, curved, rotating, curved rotating vary depending on the system. The example I provided earlier is Minkowskii metric with zero rotation. (Weak field Newtonian metric) called specifically Newtonian approximation.

Good way to start, you may note the math I posted earlier uses the same for the GR portion. Well technically including the QFT portion as well. It also greatly simplifies the math to set \( g=\hbar=c=1\) and work in normalized units. Keep the permutations with \(h_{\mu\nu}\) that's this tensors primary function.

Let's put it way, we have a very good working effective quantum field theory of spacetimes aka gravity for any every day application. It's only the extreme mass density such as the GUT scale that we run into problems with unification.

If you count tests done on atoms as macroscale which it typically is considered then yes. https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0006033.pdf Penning traps is one of the more common method used Its also been done with high precision spectrography.

Lol currently studying vacuums

I have to agree Migl. The chances of finding a CPT violation is extremely difficult without being a macro system. To get a rather large summary of the CPT and Lorentz invariant datatables one of my favorite look up references for various relations etc is here "Data Tables for Lorentz and CPT Violation" https://arxiv.org/abs/0801.0287 It's a 146 pages of sheer useful datatables lol. It's also been updated this year.

I can quarantee I won't solve baryogenesis. My research is simply studying where the research currently is on that issue. Lol too many people think the only job of a physicist is to invent new theories. Most of the work is research.

I love challenges, why do you think I enjoy physics so much ? It's challenging. One can accurately model any system or state using the mathematics of physics and subsequently test those theories. There are plenty of non textbook physics theories that attempt to counter well established theories. The difference is they still apply actual physics and mathematics You keep ignoring just how important testability is.

You might want to take another look at polarity and helicity relations of CPT with regards to that last statement.