studiot

Thank you for your thoughts. I see my typinglexia has got in the way again. Sorry. This is exactly the point I was trying to bring out , obviously I didn't succeed. The definition of entangled is that there is only one wavefunction for system. Conversely for an unentangled system there must be at least two waveforms. So there are important distinctions to be made. 'Separate' can refer to three things. The physical separation of the particles. The decomposition of the wavefunction into two (or more) wavefunctions and the mathematical process of the separation of variables of a differential equation. Writers (myself included) do not always make clear which one they mean. This was a very important point particularly if we are asking what happens to two particles when they are entangled and then physically separated so that one is then in a high gravity environment. With respect you are not clear about your answers to this. My excuse is that I am always in a rush at this time of the motning. 🙂

Or Urban or Martian if you prefer. Here's the first

This is a silly argument that is not worth pursuing.

That certainly is it for me. This discussion is just a futile windup.

I have found it helpful to have a copy of the 1905 paper always to hand since we get a steady stream of new members who have 'definitely and positively refuted Einstein's Theory of Relativity'. Many of these have never read the paper properly or can answer the simple question "Why does the paper title not refer to Relativity at all ?" Here are some comment's to answer your assertions that Special Relativity is incorrect. Like most refutations yours seems to be focused on refuting what Einstein did not say, rather than what he did. So to start with a quote from what he actually said (the 1905 paper "On the Electrodynamic of Moving Bodies June 30th 1905") I will try to explain just how well thought out and put together these few words are and that they really do justify the claim in the final line that these two postulates are in effect all you need to know. 1) First note that Einstein acknowledges preceding work and that a weaker Principle of Relativity (for mechanical systems) was already known. His first Postulate extends this to non-mechanical ones. 2) He recognises that further postulates must perforce be compatible with the first. Since there are only two postulates this means that they must be compatible with each other. 3) He then posits his second postulate which introduces the speed of light as c but note that he does not say this is constant, just definite. Note also that he does not say explicitly that c is the same for all observers. These are the three key steps that must be taken as a whole to understanding SR. The rest of the paper is devoted to the consequences of these three steps taken together. It is here he develops the ad hoc Lorenz equations, the equality of the c for all observers and other important things, which includes the constancy of c as a necessity built into the mathematical model developed.

As I am eagerly awaiting your answers to my questions. 🙂

Update In a BBC interview this morning with the LU professor conducting some of the studies I mentioned before, REACT and REACT-2, it was revealed that they ahve now gained enough information to start separating the effects of no vaccination, a single shot of vaccination and a double shot of vaccination, and the difference between the effects of vaccination on those who have or already had covid and those who did not.

I do not understand this. 1) Would you like to amplify this ? Lorenz effects only apply to components in the direction of (relative) motion. Any curve by its own nature has components both in this direction and perpendicular to this direction, at which point the Lorenz effect is precisely zero. Relativity and the Principle of Relativity goes way back centuries before Einstein. 2) So what particular relativity did you have in mind ? 3) What exactly do you find wrong with synchronisation as described in the 1905 paper? I certainly find one has to flip back and fore between pages and sections to correlate it all - and then it all makes perfect sense to me, but I admit it is difficult to explain. Three specific questions about some rather waffly and unsubstantiated assertions on the subject. I hope Dr Swanson will comment of your thoughts about the H-K experiment and many subsequent repeats, some of which I believe he has participated in. This terrority is his kingdom.

It is worth reviewing some aspects of entanglement here. First quantum entanglement is not fully understood in that all the ramifications and implications have not been worked out (perhaps een not most of them) in the way that has been done in classical mechanics. Secondly there are two views of entanglement, viewed from two ends of the telescope if you like. One view is that you start with discrete or separate 'particles' : These have separate wave functions which do not interact with each other so can be individually interacted with by agencies outside the sysem. Upon entanglement, there are no longer two separate independent wavefunctions, but a single wavefunction that describes the whole system of entangled particles. Outside agencies can no longer interact with the original wavefunctions as they could before entanglement. The other view is that you start with a wavefunction for the entangled system and cause the single wavefunction degenerate into two separate individual wavefunctions by some means. Now the OP asks if gravity might be such a degenerating outside agency. Are related question would be are any such effect significant ? I don't know of any real or thought experiments about this but, I suggest that we consider the attached diagram (From Hyperphysics) Look at the column marked 'strength'. This shows the relative strength of the forces acting inside the atom where it can readily be seen just how weak gravity is compared to the other forces, which is why standard models ignore gravity in their calculation. Oh yes it should be pointed out that all our 'calculations' are really just models And with models, what you leave out (ignore) is just as important as what you put in, so you hope you haven't missed out anything significant. Finally we come to the twin unspecified questions of what particles we would choose to separate and how this would be achieved.

My apologies, it was nothing personal nor a trick. I realise now that I must have got mixed up trying to set up this thread and introduce the appropriate background posts from the 'space' thread. You did in fact reply here not there. So the mix up was totally my fault. The point is that we are supposed to stay on 'topic here'. So discussion of spacetime invariants and coordinates are off topic in a thread about space. Now consider the following network of 5 points and the geometric figure they describe. The geometric figure is quite independent of any coordinate system. This is a basic property of Euclidian geometry, which is primarily about shape. Wherever you place this shape and in whatever orientation it remains the same. This is not true of the geometry of Descartes since as you move it about or turn it round the coordinates of each of the 5 points will, in general, change, although the distance between each point remains invariant. This difference is also common to a network of points in the spacetime of special relativity. The interval between each point does not vary so the whole of spacetime could be described, without a coordinate sytem at all. Just a simple list of intervals. The network is fixed.

Slight misunderstanding there. It is the spacetime intervals tha are invariant ie measured or reckoned the same by all (inertial) observers. Both space intervals (ie lengths) and time intervals (ie durations) vary with observer. Remember, Mordred started this thread to discuss space as separate from time. He refers to space as 'volume' , wghich is a pretty fair description. You are correct that Minkowski invented spacetime, (but then unfortunately died.)

Actually they are just starting this type of trial in the UK. direct infection of selected volunteers. This was announced a few days ago on the BBC. Sorry I don't have more details at the moment. Since about the first 2 months the UK government has been announcing (daily and cumulative) totals of all those who 1) Had a positive covid test within 28 days before death 2) Has covid specifically stated on the death certificate. The government announces confirmed cases only in the totals. London University has carried out mass testing within the general population (my family has participated in this) over a 3 month period to assess these figures. This was done by distributing home self test kits and collecting the results. Those who were revealed to be asymptomatic on thesewere sent for further tests /advised to self isolate. Further data is being gathered on so callled excess deaths. This is the increased number of deaths experienced over the long term average for the time of year. This is larger than just the covid deaths since other increases have also occurred and attempts have been made to allow for this.

@Prof Reza Sanaye I cannot imagine why, when the moderator told you to start another thread and I helped by doing so you are continuing to wish to discuss spactime in a thread where the original poster quite clearly and specifically said he was discussing space as distinct from spacetime.

Which government would this be ? We in the UK understand that different countries are measuring these figures differently. Even the UK government changed its method of reporting part way through. Further I'm sure there will be revisions after the event as mistakes will also have been made.

Nasty little snide remark there. I did not say that equations of motion do not contain information about trajectory. Swansont and I were discussing affably the possibility of such an equation containing information about energy. Not every conceivable equation of motion contains trajectory information or for that matter information about every conceivable variable. So the equation distance = speed times time contains no trajectory information and has other 'missing' variables as does the equation acceleration = time rate of change of speed.

So you wouldn't describe the equation for the motion of a falling weight Kinetic energy gained = loss of potential energy as an equation of motion? Fair enough.

It means that it's gibberish. Be done with it.

I have started a new thread here for your convenience, containing my answer to your comments

I am starting this as a split from Mordred's what is space topic as the subject has been broached. Henri Bergson's disagreement with Einstein is nearly one hundred years into the past. HB was observably wrong in at least the twins paradox. However he was right in this His metaphysics made matters worse rather than better in that he introduced two kinds of time ! I had to check with my copy to make sure you were not referring to another philosopher, Professor Berkson, whose book "Fields of Force" offers a rather different view. I don't think that either Bergson or yourself understand what I meant by " without an underlying coordinate system", particularly as Bergson used 'duration' differently. It is possible to mathematically replicate Special Relativiety (SR) without any coordinate system whatsoever by means of a network of linked invariants. This difference is the difference between Euclidian geometry and that of DeCartes. I look forward to your discussion.

A good observation. +1 As to experiments, I agree that the AG were more theorists than experimentalists, but no (zero) experiments ?

[math]\frac{{{d^2}\psi }}{{d{x^2}}} + \frac{{8{\pi ^2}m}}{{{h^2}}}\left( {E - U} \right)\psi = 0[/math] ?? And yes, I know this is only the one dimensional version, but it's easier to write.

Yes toroids, along with tesseracts, pyramids and crystals. Funny how often geometric words figure in the mystique.

Accepted. Anyone can overlook things and most new members here seem to overlook the rules, hopefully you are more careful with important documents before you sign them. But I also offered you my guesswork as to what this might be about. Guesswork since I haven't been able to read the article. Penrose is a world authority on mathematical physics and has tried to introduce a physcological aspect to quantum entanglement. You will find reference to this in his massive book the 'Road to Reality'.

+1

There was a BBC Horizon programme about this story in 1998 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/241228.stm