Physicists have proposed an experiment that could force us to make a choice between extremes to describe the behaviour of the Universe.

The proposal comes from an international team of researchers from Switzerland, Belgium, Spain and Singapore, and is published today in *Nature Physics*. It is based on what the researchers call a 'hidden influence inequality'. This exposes how quantum predictions challenge our best understanding about the nature of space and time, Einstein's theory of relativity.

"We are interested in whether we can explain the funky phenomena we observe without sacrificing our sense of things happening smoothly in space and time," says Jean-Daniel Bancal, one of the researchers behind the new result, who carried out the research at the University of Geneva in Switzerland. He is now at the Centre for Quantum Technologies at the National University of Singapore.

Excitingly, there is a real prospect of performing this test.

The implications of quantum theory have been troubling physicists since the theory was invented in the early 20th Century. The problem is that quantum theory predicts bizarre behaviour for particles – such as two 'entangled' particles behaving as one even when far apart. This seems to violate our sense of cause and effect in space and time. Physicists call such behaviour 'nonlocal'.

It was Einstein who first drew attention to the worrying implications of what he termed the "spooky action at a distance" predicted by quantum mechanics. Measure one in a pair of entangled atoms to have its magnetic 'spin' pointing up, for example, and quantum physics says the other can immediately be found pointing in the opposite direction, wherever it is and even when one could not predict beforehand which particle would do what. Common sense tells us that any such coordinated behaviour must result from one of two arrangements. First, it could be arranged in advance. The second option is that it could be synchronised by some signal sent between the particles.

In the 1960s, John Bell came up with the first test to see whether entangled particles followed common sense. Specifically, a test of a 'Bell inequality' checks whether two particles' behaviour could have been based on prior arrangements. If measurements violate the inequality, pairs of particles are doing what quantum theory says: acting without any 'local hidden variables' directing their fate. Starting in the 1980s, experiments have found violations of Bell inequalities time and time again.

Quantum theory was the winner, it seemed. However, conventional tests of Bell inequalities can never completely kill hope of a common sense story involving signals that don't flout the principles of relativity. That's why the researchers set out to devise a new inequality that would probe the role of signals directly.

Experiments have already shown that if you want to invoke signals to explain things, the signals would have to be travelling faster than light – more than 10,000 times the speed of light, in fact. To those who know that Einstein's relativity sets the speed of light as a universal speed limit, the idea of signals travelling 10,000 times as fast as light already sets alarm bells ringing. However, physicists have a getout: such signals might stay as 'hidden influences' – useable for nothing, and thus not violating relativity. Only if the signals can be harnessed for faster-than-light communication do they openly contradict relativity.

The new hidden influence inequality shows that the getout won't work when it comes to quantum predictions. To derive their inequality, which sets up a measurement of entanglement between four particles, the researchers considered what behaviours are possible for four particles that are connected by influences that stay hidden and that travel at some arbitrary finite speed.

Mathematically (and mind-bogglingly), these constraints define an 80-dimensional object. The testable hidden influence inequality is the boundary of the shadow this 80-dimensional shape casts in 44 dimensions. The researchers showed that quantum predictions can lie outside this boundary, which means they are going against one of the assumptions. Outside the boundary, either the influences can't stay hidden, or they must have infinite speed.

Experimental groups can already entangle four particles, so a test is feasible in the near future (though the precision of experiments will need to improve to make the difference measurable). Such a test will boil down to measuring a single number. In a Universe following the standard relativistic laws we are used to, 7 is the limit. If nature behaves as quantum physics predicts, the result can go up to 7.3.

So if the result is greater than 7 – in other words, if the quantum nature of the world is confirmed – what will it mean?

Here, there are two choices. On the one hand, there is the option to defy relativity and 'unhide' the influences, which means accepting faster-than-light communication. Relativity is a successful theory that researchers would not call into question lightly, so for many physicists this is seen as the most extreme possibility.

The remaining option is to accept that influences must be infinitely fast – or that there exists some process that has an equivalent effect when viewed in our spacetime. The current test couldn't distinguish. Either way, it would mean that the Universe is fundamentally nonlocal, in the sense that every bit of the Universe can be connected to any other bit anywhere, instantly. That such connections are possible defies our everyday intuition and represents another extreme solution, but arguably preferable to faster-than-light communication.

"Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them," says Nicolas Gisin, Professor at the University of Geneva, Switzerland, and member of the team.

**Explore further:**
Researchers violate Bell’s inequality with an atom and a photon

**More information:**
*Nature Physics* (2012). DOI:10.1038/NPHYS2460

## baudrunner

## M4dH4TT3r

## Noumenon

It's not, but in order to see any such correlation (to decode a message), one must send the results at c, and compare them.

## Noumenon

This apparent 'seam in reality' between classical physics and qm, is an artifact of the conceptualization of Reality, by mind.

Space, time, and causality, are not physical entities of themselves, but relations between things. These concepts are a-priori intuitions of the mind,.. or forms in which the mind orders experience. They are therefore dependent upon mind, not the physical entity being modeled, as is seen at the qm realm.

## Noumenon

A rough analogy would be as in GR, where there are invariants, truths which are not dependent upon a particular coordinate system description.

Likewise, there must be "invariant" physical truths which are not dependant upon a particular conceptual framework,.... like the one mind evolved with to order experience at the macro scale.

The above experiment should vindicate the Copenhagen interpretation, and the logical positivist approach.

## Oysteroid

## M4dH4TT3r

Of course I have similar theories about photons and their traveling through time and space; I see time kind of like a roll of film as an infinite amount of parallel dimensions we are constantly traveling through while the photon travels on a different path.

If I am right and black holes are stationary theoretically they could be the oldest thing in the universe and the "big bang" could have been cause by the reaction of one in which case the exact expansion patterns of the "known" universe could be estimated.

• Do you mean that if we observe two black holes approaching each other it's in fact the space time shrinking?

If we see to black holes approaching each other it would be my opinion that it is actually a parabola in space & time which is in fact probably because by the 2(or m

## M4dH4TT3r

Of course photons and their traveling through time and space; I see time kind of like a roll of film as an infinite amount of parallel dimensions we are constantly traveling through while the photon travels on a different path.

If I am right and black holes are stationary they would be the oldest thing in the universe and the big bang(s) could have been caused by a reaction of them in which case the exact expansion patterns of the "known" universe could be estimated.

If we see 2 black holes approaching each other, that it is actually a parabola in space & time which is caused by 2 (or more) black holes. If that parabola in fact closes and the 2 black holes join a portion of time and space is permanently folded over onto itself, probably best explained withthe dots on the paper used to represent Einsteins theor

## MrVibrating

## Noumenon

Time and space are not physical entities in themselves, discoverable independently of there Application in relating things, ... they are not a 'substance' effecting things, nor mind.

Rather, mind Presumes space and time, as a-priori concepts, ... as a built-in mechanism in ordering experience for consciousness.

So, by definition, one cannot have a "intuitive understanding" (classical physics), except through these concepts.

A circular argument, indeed. Are you saying here that a temporal relation between things is itself temporal? Space and time ARE the relations, not the things being related.

## MrVibrating

I believe there must be non-local hidden variables beyond conventional spacetime because i can't accept that causality is subjective - that would be too anthropomorphic. I depend on reality, not the other way around!

## MrVibrating

I meant that distances in space and time are the relations, and they're subjective wrt speed. But the metric is not the medium, and the map isn't the territory... Space and time are very much intrinsic properties of the universe. A more fundamental substrate - as might accommodate quantum causality - with no dependence on space or time, seems oxymoronic.

## nevermark

But Einstein showed that in fact space and time are curved. But we still only see this for high speeds, accelerations and things moving through gravity wells. The illusion in our everyday world is unbroken.

It would also appear that our intuition that space is seamless is wrong.

If every quantum event effecting two particles creates some kind of entanglement between them, then space-time is a tangle of crisscrossed non-local connections. We only notice when we manage to recapture the state of pairs of pre-interacting particles and correlate them. Since that is hard, the everyday illusion that things are only connected locally is maintained.

## nevermark

Until we really know how space is constructed at the smallest scale we don't know. And that will require unification of GR and QM.

## indio007

## Nikstlitselpmur

We observe the Universe from within the gravitational well of a singularity that has a responding correlating cause and effect with all mass and matter right down to the last particle within the galaxy. Observations at the Quantum level and "action at a distance" may be no more that the effects of frame dragging at the Quantum level,caused by the BH at the Galaxy's core.

If Frame Dragging occurs, wouldn't it effect smooth space time?

## ValeriaT

## RivertonRat

## ValeriaT

## ValeriaT

## RivertonRat

You can find the article here on Arxiv.org

## ValeriaT

## gwrede

So, instead, I'll just smile smugly at the scientists, and think for myself "they'll get it, eventually". And I can even give a hint: reread your Occam.

Oh, yes, and I expect this post to get a lot of 1's, too. :-)

## rah

## Tired0

If it is a large particle decaying into two other smaller particles those two particles were already in those states before the large one split. They were why the large particle had the characteristics that it had.

If it was two particles initially and they were separated by an oscillating, standing wave, EM wave, etc. what external force is going to change the states again? Would they not stay in opposite states as long as the wave is applied to keep them entangled? How long did it take to move those two particles apart from one another? Slower then the speed of light I bet.

You can do an experiment with visible objects and waves that match the results. Unless there is an external force like "measurement" the two objects will stay synced until friction or some other force comes into play. What else would cause particles that are already in the opposite state to change again?

## Torbjorn_Larsson_OM

That is not really what happens. A loophole is that you could choose to have observables as real only when observed (say, as in Many World Theory as seen from one World). In that case, non-locality appears first in the experiments where the chosen correlations are changed as you go (or mediate observables ahead of the time of change, since that can happen as well). [ Both cases described here: http://www.techno...paradox/ ]

## Torbjorn_Larsson_OM

"it would mean that the Universe is fundamentally nonlocal, in the sense that every bit of the Universe can be connected to any other bit anywhere, instantly."

Not really, since most of the universe is _not_ entangled. What happens is that entanglements set up a local delay in the universal clock cosmological expansion sets up. When the entanglement collapses the lightcone catch up.

Presumably these delayed lightcones will not make a problem at the cosmological horizon as they are redshifted out of observability.

## Torbjorn_Larsson_OM

Solipsism is cute, but rejected by observation. (Every mechanics has an observational test of reality. In QM it is observation-observables.) Spacetime is emergent, and space and time are observed fundamentals. We build our everyday intuition of spacetime on that, but it fails for non-locality (say).

The classical Copenhagen fails on decoherence.

@ Oysteroid: "astrology, here we come. "

That is not warranted, remember that such signals are explicitly forbidden. Stars would set up correlations with the ultimate speed limit, no matter what correlations could be sent after.

## Torbjorn_Larsson_OM

@ nevermark: Your QM is on the money, I think. Your cosmology is a decade dated: inflation happens within spacetime before big bang (the first moment we can see a space with particles) and it predicts a flat space. It also removes the singularities and planck scale considerations you seem to expect (see Susskind's latest papers; available on arxiv).

@ indio007: QM has been saved from relativity since quantum field theory, which builds on the combination of relativity and QM to predict fields.

That is ~ 90 years old knowledge, I believe. You are 4 generations (@ 25 years) out of date.

## Erscheinung

Space and time are not observed themselves as independent things, ever,... they're concepts that are applied. You can't see time in a microscope, but can only apply the concept in relating two things. We define time, not observer it. For example, we set a standard; the number of cycles of a cesium atom that is congruent with another event,.... is said to be the "time" of the event. The concept was already presumed before hand.

Intuitions are a-priori to experience,... which is to say the mind operates on experience in various ways to conceptualize Reality, to conform Reality within its built in modes of thought, space, time, causality...as that is what mind does to acquire an intuitive understanding.

I'm not advocating solipsism or idealism,... the opposite in fact. Mind dependent concepts and intuitions should not guide physics as if they were experimentally discovered entities of themselves,.... this is what lead Einstein astray wrt qm.

Noumenon

## Erscheinung

Noumenon

## ValeriaT

## ValeriaT

## Tausch

Who will defeat QM?

What makes all humans feel secure is living in a predictable world.

So if QM predictions are right for all the wrong reasons...

Who cares?

## ant_oacute_nio354

the lorentz equations give the dopler effect for transversal waves

x and t are not space and time but wavelength and period of a electromagnetic wave

c^2t^2 - x^2 = S ; S = 1.9121x10^-34 m^2

## taka

## Noumenon

Yes, exactly,... that's what i'm saying. It only becomes a "problem" when folks insist that qm "should makes sense", by in effect trying to fit reality at the qm realm into our limited intuitive framework.

No really, as it can be adapted to include it. Decoherence does not explain the measurement problem nor reconciles qm with classical physics.

## Noumenon

Reality is what ever it is, independent of mind. However, the act of knowing reality by definition involves mind, inescapably,.. because then WE force Reality to conform to our a-priori conceptual scheme to "make sense" of it.

This intuitive conceptual scheme is "built-in", or evolved as a mechanism of mind to operate on and order experience for consciousness. It is not possible to conform reality wihin this, in effect, arbitrary and mind dependent framework, consistently.

Why would the mind evolve with concepts that are applicable at all scales? If the mind evolved at the qm realm, it would have mechanisms to order experience at that realm, and so qm would then "make sense".

## Noumenon

## Noumenon

I worded this wrong. Of course, the point is to show how the classical limit emerges. We already knew it must.

## PresstoDigitate

## gwrede

Seems regular people don't write, they only read. That is, if we do have any of them left.

Having said that, it is wonderful to find the odd one every once in a while, who seems to actually have a clue. Torbjorn_Larsson_OM seems to be one, and at times antialias_physorg. There are some others, too (but there's obviously no point in trying to enumerate, lest I miss someone deserving of mention.) And the other day I found albertovailati defending an article here about his own research.

What I find absolutely amazing is, how any of them bother to waste their time throwing their seeds to a hostile and infertile ground.

But I'm happy they do!

## johanfprins

You can also increase the size of a holistic-wave by entangling other separate waves with it: When doing this these waves lose their distinguishability: They cannot be seperately identified anymore. NOT because they are "identical" as is stupidly claimed in the mainstream QM literature. Identical DOES NOT imply indistinguishable.

It is thus possible to have a single holistic matter-wave which, when you entangle an electron with it on one side, an electron disentangles on the other side. There is no motion of an electron from one contact to the other, and therefore the electron appears at the other contact as if it has moved near-instantaneously from one contcat to another.

## johanfprins

I already have the capability to generate such an entangled wave in the laboratory throuh which signals can be sent faster than the speed of light. But as long as the crackpots in charge of mainstream theoretical physics insist to believe in Voodoo concepts like "wave-particle duality" and "complementarity" we will never be able to guide physics out of the quagmire, of quarks, gluons, Higgs bosons, anyons, and other similar unreal stupidities.

## Noumenon

Are you talking about group velocities above c of waves(?), because no information (signal) can be carried as you appear to say.

## antialias_physorg

I think you need to read up on the definitions of entanglement and what a signal (i.e. information transmission) actually is. And then you may notice that the two are incompatible.

While you do so pay especially attention to (required) knowledge of a priori and a posteriori states.

## johanfprins

There are no group velocities involved in my experiment, since the transfer of the signal (electron-in to electron-out)is non-local.

Even when an electron-wave moves through free space is must be a coherent wave with a single well-defined frequency, like ALL coherent waves have. If this were not the case, you would not have had a well-defined de Broglie relationship between wavelength and momentum, AND an ensemble of electrons moving with the same speed would not have been able to form a diffraction pattern.

## johanfprins

I am waiting with bated breath for you to explain this!

## johanfprins

NO I am not, since this is nonsense. You can never get a group velocity that is faster than the velocity of a single coherent wave.

Correction: Than the highest-energy coherent wave that takes part in forming the wave-packet!

## presentTense

## johanfprins

Your whole model is classical physics: When classical physics applies, there cannot be communication that is faster than the speed of light between separate "particles". BTW, the latter concept is also classical physics (an invention of Newton) and should not feature in quantum mechanics at all!

What is called a "particle" is the centre-of-mass of an entity which could be, but need not be the lowest energy manifestation of that entity. To call the motion of a centre-of-mass the motion of a "particle" is moronic.

Even more moronic is to state that there is an uncertainty in the position and momentum of such a centre-of-mass. Mass and centre-of-mass came from inertia which means that there must be an inertial reference frame within which the centre-of-mass must be STATIONARY! NO uncertainty in position, and the momentum is zero: NO uncertainty in momentum either

## unknownorgin

## johanfprins

Very good! But not correct! According to STR only relative motion is possible. Therefore you cannot say which clock is moving: However. if you can suddenly stop time you will find that all clocks within our universe (except maybe for gravity) will show the exact same time. There is a global time rate, just like Newton has assumed. If there is not, simultaneous events will not be possible at all.

## visual

## johanfprins

Why do you think I do not understand the relativity of simultaneity? Do you?

Simultaneous events at different positions are not possible when clocks at different positions show different times; as is accepted within textbooks that they do; and as is assumed when constructing Minkowski space.

## johanfprins

If time is a fourth coordinate which changes from one position to the next, how can two events occur simultaneously at ANY two separate positions; as Einstein had assumed is possible?

Is it not a prerequisite that two events at two different positions can only be simultaneous when the clocks at the two positions keep the exact same time?

And since simultaneous events can occur at any two separate positions, does this not demand that clocks at all positions must keep the same time?

And if a "coordinate" at all positions has the exact same value, is it really a "coordinate"? Not bloody likely!

## Noumenon

As already explained here by me and others,...

Not in general. Two events as Determined to be simultaneous, are only so, for the observer sharing the same IRF as the events in question.

No. There is nothing special or absolute about positions. It's about inertia reference frames. Two other observers traveling at different velocities may not agree with the initial observer (in same IRF as the events) that the events were simultaneous, nor even agree amongst each other, of which event took place first.

## johanfprins

I have NOT disagreed with this at all! So stop playing semantic games, or are you REALLY so slow?

Take a single inertial reference frame: No other motion. If two events occur simultaneously at two different positions which are both stationary within this inertial reference frame, the time at these two positions, as measured relative to this reference frame must be the same: Or do you dispute this?

Do you want to argue that within this inertial reference frame two events at two separate positions, which are stationary relative to one another, can be simultaneous while the times at these two positions are different! Please help me God!

## Noumenon

No, that is correct.

## Noumenon

I never argued that. If the stationary observer determines the two events are simultaneous, it does not imply that another moving observer (in a different IRF) must also determine the two events to be simultaneous.

The reason is, that the moving observer uses his OWN coordinate system to express the events in question. The physical events are invariants, but the coordinates used to express those events are not, being dependent on the observer. One observers time is a mixture of time and space of another observer in a difference IRF.

## ValeriaT

## lengould100

Sounds a bit unlikely to me. Compared to that, FTL communications and revising relativity are far more likely, just my opinion.

## johanfprins

I have not argued otherwise, except to state that time is not a coordinate that simultaneously have different values at different positions.

As you have just now conceded, for simultaneity to be possible within a single IRF, the time at any instant must simultaneously be the same at all coordinate positions within the IRF. Thus the clocks keep exactly the same time-rate independent of where they are situated within an IRF.

In turn, this must obviously be the case for all IRF's since according to Einstein's first postulate they are all equivalent: The same experiment done in any IRF must give the same result.

This in turn demands that all clocks in our universe must be keping the same time whether they move relative to one another or not.

## johanfprins

His conclusion that this demands that two simultaneous events within an IRF is not observed to be simultaneous by a moving observer was pure genius.

His thought experiment using a train and two lightning flashes to illustrate non-simultaneity, is a blunder, since he violated his own postulate that light must move with speed c relative to both the observer on the platform, and the observer on the train.

His interpretation of time-dilation was another blunder since he only used one half of the Lorentz-transformation and thus assumed that the times on two clocks can simultaneously be different.

His interpretation of length-contraction is another blunder because, in this case, he only used the other half of the Lorentz transformation.

## johanfprins

A photon is a coherent light-wave with the lowest energy that can be detected or emitted given by h*(nu). Like any wave it can split into parts when moving through (say) two slits: The two parts moving through the two slits remain a SINGLE HOLISTC wave. i.e. they are entangled.

When checking through which slit the photon has moved, one must detect the photon. Since one cannot detect less energy than h*(nu), the detector collapses the two parts into a single photon. That is why the two parts cannot then interfere with one another anymore.

When you have two entangled photons one still has a wave that is a single holistic entity. Thus, the two parts which follow different paths are NOT separate photon waves until a measurement disentangles them.

Thus, these experiments can be explained in terms of causality without believing in Voodoo, like John Wheeler did.

## johanfprins

They are parts of a single electromagnetic wave. When the boundary conditions change, for example when making a measurement on a single photon, the two subparts must collapse into a single part or else the detector cannot observe it.

If the wave consists of an entanglement of photon-waves, a measurement can disentangle them. At disentanglement their properties are correlated. But now they are separate entities which cannot communicate at a speed faster than the speed of light anymore.

It becomes quite simple and causal as soon as you reject the Voodoo of "wave-particle duality" and "complementarity".

## Tausch

Lite is constant and consistent (see our ratings!)

Anyway, the last few comments of yours are impressive - I share your view on holism in respect to waves.

## ValeriaT

## johanfprins

Thanks! I have just now left another comment on holism for you on another thread.

## johanfprins

On this point we disagree, since I have experimental evidence that electrons also lose their separate identies. First they do so in pairs, for example, a covalent bond. These pairs can in turn lose their separate identities to form double bonds and triple bonds.

When I extract electrons from n-type diamond, millions of electrons form pairs which then again merge to lose their separate identities. One can see the macro-wave with a microscope, and it teleports electrons: superconduction at room temperature.

Thus both photons and electrons can TOTALLY lose their separate identities. Photons=laser beam; electrons=superconductor.

## johanfprins

You are deliberately misleading us. This is a pie-in-the-sky proposal that has not been experimentally proved and is probably impossible since it relies on the concept of Cooper pairs which is also a fallacy.

Again you are misleading us.

The silicon droplets act as sources for the waves which dissipate as the wave-fronts move away. Where does this energy come from in the case of an electron or a photon?

Furthermore, in the illustration of double slit diffraction the "particle" and its "wave" move through a single slit at a time. Thus, all you will be able to observe is two single slit diffraction patterns that overlap.

To even think that this models what happens to and electron- or a photon-wave is ludicrous and farfetched.

## Noumenon

Correct.

Correct.

## Noumenon

Not correct! This does NOT follow from the above two propositions.

Each IRF is by definition a different coordinate system. One moving observer can't just use a different observers coordinate system to describe an event, he must use his OWN system, OR transform anothers result into his own coordinate system.

Given that the speed of light is finite, it must be the case that one observers time (or space) component is a mixture of anothers space and time components, the Lorentz transform,.... in order to keep invarient physical quantites the same for all observers.

## johanfprins

Let me answer your arguments for disagreeing with me.

Correct

I have not claimed this at all. All I am claiming is that clocks within different IRF's keep the exact same time within their respective IRF's

Within his own system all stationary clocks keep the exact same time and the space coordinates are Cartesian. His space-time reference-frame is Newtonian. This is the case for ALL IRF's.

Aha! Since he is looking OUTSIDE his own system he is using his own system, which is Newtonian, to COMPARE the transformed coordinates to.

The transformed coordinates do NOT replace his own Newtonian coordinates. (I will proceed

## johanfprins

Consider two passing clocks ater a time tm on the moving clock, this distance Dm according to this clock, between the clocks, must be:

1. Dm=v*tm

This is so since v must be Dm divided by tm.

The LT gives the "corresponding" time on the stationary clock as

t(LT)s, where:

2. t(LT)s=(beta)*tm,

where beta is the inverse of the usual square root. Einstein interpreted this result as time-dilation of the moving clock.

BUT, BUT, BUT, blundered!

According to the LT, the distance of the moving clock from the staionary clock D(LT)s, and is given by:

3. D(LT)s=(beta)*(v*tm),

proceed below

## johanfprins

4. v(LT)s=D(LT)s/t(LT)s=v

Thus the time t(LT)s is not longer because the moving clock kept time at a slower rate, but because the stationary observer only see the event after the moving clock has moved further from its position Dm when the event actually occurs to the position D(LT)s when the event is observed by the stationary observer.

In fact when the event occurred at the distance Dm, the distance, as measured from the moving clock must be the same as measured from the stationary clock. If at this distance the stationary clock shows a time ts, one must have that Dm=v*ts: Thus one must have that:

5. Dm=v*tm=v*ts

Which demands that

6. ts=tm

The clocks thus keep the exact same time as they each must.

There is thus NOT a time-coordinate that changes with position. The time-difference obtained from the LT, is caused by non-simultaneity: Not by time dilation on the moving clock.

## Noumenon

You already made that argument, to which I responded,.. you need to take into consideration that relative movement, (using "gamma" instead of "beta"), as follows,.....

## Noumenon

dm = y(ds - v*ts) and ds = y(dm + v*tm) ,.... where y = gamma,...

Substitute the 2nd equation into the 1st to find ts , where y = (1 - v^2/c^2)^-1/2 = gamma

dm = y(y(dm + v*tm) - v*ts),...

dm = y^2*dm + y^2*v*tm - y*v*ts,.... divide by y^2 ,...

dm/y^2 = dm + v*tm - v*ts/y,..... now since 1/y^2 = (1-v^2/c^2),...

dm - v^2*dm/c^2 = dm + v*tm - v*ts/y,.... subtract out dm,...

- v^2*dm/c^2 = v*tm - v*ts/y,... divide out by v,...

- v*dm/c^2 = tm - ts/y,....

ts/y = tm + v*dm/c^2,... multiply both sides by y (gamma) ,...

ts = y(tm + v*dm/c^2) ----> the time on stationary clock of the event (the event being the time tm on moving clock, say of a explosion).

ts will show a later time than tm.

## Noumenon

## johanfprins

What is the difference between what you call gamma-movement and beta movement? All you are doing is to try and avoid using the Lorentz-transformation correctly. My proof above is simple and correct.

I have asked you before, and ask you again, what is ds and dm, and why must you suddenly use differentials? So let me repeat my questions:

1. What is the difference between my beta and your gamma

2. And please do your derivation without using differentials which are mathematical entities with no physical meaning on their own: Can you, for example, show me how you physically measure a distance dx?

Mathematics IS NOT physics but only a very handy language to describe physics. Although mathematics might seem self-consistent, like Minkowski space seems to be, it can be physically irrelevant, like Minkowski-space is.

## Noumenon

You have not defined your beta, while I have defined my gamma, as follows,...

y = gamma = (1 - v^2/c^2)^-1/2

Typically beta is taken as v/c.

2. And please do your derivation without using differentials which are mathematical entities with no physical meaning on their own: Can you, for example, show me how you physically measure a distance dx?

I'm not using differentials, ..i'm using YOUR variables, ds and dm, .. i just did not capitalize the D.

## johanfprins

Dm=(beta)*(Xs-v*ts) AND

tm=(beta)*(ts-(v/c^2)*Xs)

And from Km to Ks you have that:

Ds=(beta)*(Xm plus v*tm)

ts=(beta)*(tmplus(v/c^2)*Xm)

Say the time on the moving clock is tm, then the distance from the stationary clock must be v*tm. At this instant an event occur on the moving clock. The coodinate of this event is Xm=0 (ZERO!!!). Thus the distance Ds according to the LT is:

Ds=(beta)*v*tm

And the time on the staionary clock is:

ts=(beta)*v*tm

Both the time and the distance is larger. Thus the time on the stationary clock is the time when the moving clock reaches the distance Ds, which is larger than the distance v*tm when the event occurred.

## Noumenon

I think you made a mistake here,.. you probably mean to say,..

ts = (beta) tm,...

In any case, if ts is larger, which it would be if you are taking my gamma= beta,... this would imply clock Km is running slower, since ts being "larger" means elapsed more time on Ks compared to Km.

## johanfprins

ts=(beta)*tm

No it does NOT since the distance between the clocks when the moving clock reached the time tm is v*tm, while the distance between the clocks when the stationary clock reads ts, is

Ds=(beta)*v*tm

which is larger than the distance v*tm on the moving clock was when the event occurred. Thus the time ts on the stationary clock is the time on BOTH clocks when they are a distance Ds apart which is larger than the distance at which the moving clock showed the time tm. Thus ts MUST be larger than tm even though the clocks keep exactly the same time.

## Noumenon

## johanfprins

There is no length-contraction: Einstein assumed that simultaneous positions of the front and rear of a stationary rod can also be simultaneous within a passing inertial reference frame. And this just after he argued that two simultaneous events (which can the positions of an entity) which do not move relative to one another cannot be simultaneous within a passing reference-frame!

In the case of time dilation, he assumed that the time on a moving clock and the LT transformed time from this clock to a stationary clock are simultaneously present on the two clocks. The Lorentz-transformation proves tha it cannot be, since the transformed time can only be present on the stationary clock after the moving clock has moved to a postion Ds so that the time on both clocks is t=ts, since ts=Ds/v.

## ValeriaT

## Noumenon

But you are speaking about distances, rather than coordinates. If your experiment does not use relative lengths, then you should be using invariant space-time interval, instead.

The distance between events is invariant, which will fix your Ds != Dm issue, and therefore the interpretation of ts running faster than tm.

My apology, I should have known this when I used your Ds and Dm which should have told me to use Xs and Xm instead,... then interpret your problem using the ds^2 = g(ab)dx^a * dx^b,... with g(ab) = kronecker delta with Lorentzian signature.

@velariaT , why rate 1's?

## ValeriaT

An your theory is both ugly, both silly, both violates the experiments. Ironically enough, you're himself using the relativistic contraction in your "explanations" of curvature around particle wave.

Because both of you are off-topic here. Read the rules of PO discussions first.

## johanfprins

I am not going to digress at this stage. One point at a time!

The fact is that when the LT time on the stationary clock is ts=(bet)*tm, the LT distance between the clocks is Ds=(bet)*v*tm where v*tm is the distance between the clocks when the moving clock showed the time tm. After the moving clock has moved further distance Ds, the time on it must be t#m=Ds/v, and since Ds=(bet)*v*tm, one finds that t#m=(bet)*tm=ts. Thus the time on the stationary clock is the time on the moving clock when the latter clock has moved away from it to be at a distance Ds from it. It is not the time on the stationary clock when the moving clock is at a distance v*tm from it.

## johanfprins

In contrast Noumenon acts more like a real scientist: We disagree and when we see ecah other's point we agree! This is how scientits are supposed to interact.

BTW, the explanation for the effects in an accelerator and for cosmic ray muons does not rely on length contraction, but on length dilation. But to try and explain this to you, will be impossible! You just do not have an open enough mind to objectively explore alternatives to what you want to believe at all cost.

## johanfprins

YOU are doing this. An event occurs at the moving clock, coordinate 0; LT tells me that this event is observed at a time ts=B*tm, when the moving clock is a distance Ds=B*v*tm from the stationary clock: How the hell can this time be different from the time on the moving clock that has to be also ts when it is a distance Ds from the stationary clock?

Space-time intervals change with the choice of the origin.

Does this not mean that the distance between the clocks is the same as viewed from either the moving or the stationary clock?

Thus tm on the moving clock and the simultaneous time ts on the stationary clock must be such that v*ts=v*tm! This means that simultaneously ts=tm. ts derived from LT is not the same!

## Noumenon

If there are two events defined, one at Xs = Xm = 0, and another some time tm later, then both observers, Os and Om agree on the Space-time distance between the events,

dts^2*c^2 - dXs^2 = dtm^2*c^2 - dXm^2

So the clocks can run at different rates AND both observers agree on the distance between the events, but this assumes you accept Minkowski space-time over Galilean space with Netwonian time, which I know you do not. However this does not mean Einstein blundered, as he would accept Minkowski's geometry once beginning work on GR.

## johanfprins

Minkowski's space-time is only valid if clocks at different positions within an IRF keep different times; and you agreed that this is not possibe. Einstein's initial instinct about Minkowski space-time (MST) was correct: Accepting MST was his most collossal blunder EVER!

## johanfprins

In the gravity model one has REAL space-time curvature around mass, owing to the wave-nature of matter. Therefore, the main postulate of the Special Theory of Relativity had to be abandoned: i.e. that light can only move with the speed c.

Einstein's gravity probably relates more to the wave-nature of matter (de Broglie's postulate) than to Minkowski's space-time.

When, for example, light approaches an atomic electron, it has to slow down and become stationary in order to be absorbed by, and add rest-mass energy to the electron-wave; which in turn must then morph ("quantum jump") into a higher energy allowed electron-wave.

For this reason light must slow down when moving through the gravity-field surrounding the electron's mass-distribution.

It is also for this reason why light curves around all objects with mass, including the Sun.

## Tausch

You made this clear. Nonmenon made this clear.

Your comments made the different geometries you both applied clear with respect to your differences.

View this way I do not understand your disappointment.

I believe the commentary exchange will continue - along the lines

of what motivated the scientific community to abandon the geometry one of you hope to see reapplied.

Speaking only for myself thks for the learning opportunity you both provided.

## johanfprins

Yes, Noumenon has been a worthy debater! I congratulate him/her.

## DarkHorse66

Not yet being up to that kind of stuff & considering the way this article is worded, I am a little unsure as to which of these two definitions is being applied:

http://en.wikiped...locality

http://en.wikiped...locality

The article seems to be using both definitions & switching between them at times & I am finding it confusing, following the changes of use. I wouldn't mind if somebody would be willing to provide more insight, especially for the phrase that I have quoted. Thanks, DH66

## DarkHorse66

## johanfprins

This is the conclusion you have to reach when believing rhe Voodoo of "wave-particle duality" and "complementarity".

After I discovered SC at room temp. in 2000, I realised that the macro-wave causing this SC is not "dual" to "particles". It is a single wave and since there are no separate "particles" also involved, a current consisting of "particles" cannot flow through it: Yet when injecting a current at one contact, a current is ejected on the other side. This is "non-local instantaneous" current transport: The current disappears at the injecting contact, and appears at the other contact faster than the speed c of light.

The latter is NOT possible when the current is transported by separate, distinguishable localised wave-entities. In the latter case current-transfer can never exceed the speed c.

## antialias_physorg

Careful. There's two possible ways of connection (if non-locality is a property of the universe): Connections that allow information transmission and those that don't.

Entaglement would be an example of the latter.

Travelling through such a connection would be an example of the former.

Entanglement ahs been demonstrated so it is a hot contender for a non-local phenomenon.

But as long as "connection" means "connection without information transmission" travel/teleportation via such shortcuts is impossible.

## johanfprins

If you inject another wave into it, and it cannot change its BC to entangle with this wave, it must eject the same wave at another contact position. This causes the SC I have discovered.

When an orbital electron-wave around the nucleus of an atom absorbs a photon-wave: The electron-wave instantaneously inflates to accomodate this increase in EM energy. When it emits this energy it instantaneously collapses to now occupy a smaller volume.

Bohr believed that these instantaneous responses are "quantum jumps" by "particles"; and shouted everybody down who wanted to suggest otherwise. He even pursued this bombastic tactic even after he had tired Schroedinger out so much that Schroedinger had to take to bed.

## johanfprins

When the waves are separate, they can only influence each other (communicate) at a speed that has light speed as an upper limit.

But as we know, when the BC's require it, a coherent wave can split up into parts which are not separate waves but, still constitute a single holistic wave.

Take for example an electron p-orbital that consists of two lobes, but is still a single-electron wave. These lobes, although separate are not each a separate holistic wave. They are thus still in instantaneous contact with one another, and can collapse into each other when the boundary conditions change. These subparts of the single electron wave thus remain entangled, even when changing the boundary conditions (i.e. when making a measurement).

## johanfprins

The screen presents new BCs which consist of a myriad of aborbers of atomic size. To be absorbed by one of these absorbers, the DWF must instantaneously collapse: It thus leaves a spot on the screen. Since there are an even distribution of absorbers, the wave collapses into the absorber with which it first resonates.

Since the DWE has a higher probability to resonate at positions where the wave-intensity is higher, the spots simulates the DWF after many photons have passed through the slits. If you are an utter fool you will conclude that the diffracted wave-intensity is a probability-distribution of where a "particle" will be found!

## johanfprins

The screen presents new BCs which consist of a myriad of aborbers of atomic size. To be absorbed by one of these absorbers, the DWF must instantaneously collapse: It thus leaves a spot on the screen. Since there are an even distribution of absorbers, the wave collapses into the absorber with which it first resonates.

Since the DWF has a higher probability to resonate at positions where the wave-intensity is higher, the spots simulates the DWF after many photons have passed through the slits. If you are an utter fool you will conclude that the diffracted wave-intensity is a probability-distribution of where a "particle" will be found!

## johanfprins

It is possible to emit two photons which are entangled to form a single holistic wave. Although the wave consists of two parts which move into opposite directions, these subparts are NOT separate, holistic waves in their own right, as they will have to be when acting like "classical particles".

They remain in instantaneous contact with one another. If you thus make a measurement on one part, the other part reacts instantaneously and in synchronisation. Thus, if you have two entangled electrons and you measure the spin of one, the spin of the other must be opposite. This would not be possible if the electrons were simultaneously also "particles"; as "wave-particle duality" mandates.

## DarkHorse66

Soo...if I have read your explanation correctly, transmission of information by quantum entanglement is not possible for the latter (hence also no physical travel), but if 'travelling' (ie 'physical teleportation) is possible for your first example, then that kind of connection also allows for 'mere' information to pass as well. That kind of info should be able to pass even more 'easily', as it does not have a physical nature. Apart from that, it would appear that you are agreeing that my hypothesis about this possibility might actually have merit in explaining the (possible) mechanism. Assuming of course, that non-locality within our universe is the correct explanation in the first place. :) If I should be wrong, why? (curiosity mode)....cont

## johanfprins

The mainstream explanation of the Aharanov-Bohm effect is thus pure Voodoo.

The electron-wave splits into two lobes, where each lobe moves through its own slit. The lobes are of equal size and the centre-of-charge of the electron-wave is thus smack bang between the lobes, and therefore, moves smack-bang through the magnetic field between the slits. This deflects the direction in which the wave moves, and this in turn deflects the diffraction pattern.

Photon-waves and electron-waves act thus just as one expects them to act in terms of classical physics. Furthermore, according to Einsten EM-energy is mass energy. Thus a photon wave has distributed EM energy and thus distributed mass energy. Distributed mass has a centre of mass. Similarly for an electron.

Unless there is a force, or any other action (BCs) the centre-of-mass of any entity moves like a "point-particle". Thus, there is nothing strange or bizarre about QM. It dovetails perfectly with classicM.

## DarkHorse66

## DarkHorse66

## antialias_physorg

If there is non-locality then there aren't any holes that open up or close down. It would just all be interconnected on a very fundamental level (and certain phenomena could be measured to demonstrate that it is)

What does that mean?

The quantum vacuum effects seem to be very local (e.g. virtual particle pairs) Elasticity would imply that pushing on one part (restricting particle pair effects - e.g. via a pair of uncharged metal plates that demonstrate the Casimir effect) somehow changes virtual particle pair creation elsewhere. That doesn't seem to be the case.

As for your question:

From the article..look for the paragraph that starts with

That is exactly what I was referring to when explaining the two types of possible non-locality.

## johanfprins

Reality: If you do not use detectors to try and see through which slit the photons moved, the two lobes which move through both slits, interfere and you get a diffraction pattern.

When using two detectors at the slits to detect through which slit the photon moves, the whole photon can only be detected by the one or the other detector when it resonates with only one of them: The lobes collapse, and no diffraction is observed.

Afshar showed that behind the slits there is a diffracted wave, which can then further on collapse 50/50 into two detectors! This disproves complementarity.

Instead of winning the Nobel Prize, his manuscript was for years rejected, and is still being queried. Physics is under the control of crackpots!

## antialias_physorg

That's one of the things you have to let go of. "Sense" is something that is based on our experience of the macroscopic world. Macroscopic experiences are made up of many (averaged) microscopic events. If you average over many events you will not be able to ever get a grasp on the particulars of individual events.

Science is not really about what makes sense or 'feels right', but what agrees with experiment. That's the only thing that counts. If it's wild, unintuitive, crazy, agrees with all observation, makes consistently good predictions and stands up under harsh testing then that's what you should go with.

The article just says that there may be a way to test what kind of non-locality (of the two possibl types) there is. One would necessitate FTL communications (which would be neat to have and also mean that we would need to augment or even replace relativity)

## johanfprins

It will be interesting for you to take my comments above to your professors and ask them to comment. Although it is unlikely that any modern mainstream physics professor has the ability to think for him/herself! Such people are few and far between: In the USA there is most probably only one such a person: Carver Mead at Caltech.

## DarkHorse66

That was probably a bit badly worded,I have always associated gravity with having an effect on space as well as time,in the relativity interpretation of space-time. I have always understood that it exerted some kind of pressure on space itself.I know that I am approaching it in a bumbling way. If you can give me clearer wording,I would appreciate it.There is the follow to consider as well.It would appear to support my 'sense' about the concept of involvement of elasticity of the vacuum wrt to my earlier comments: http://cedb.asce....i?137465 http://adsabs.har...32Ghttp:

http://www.encycl...heory_of

http://books.goog...asticity of the vacuum&source=bl&ots=-vavW9fqrh&sig=8vbsF1djtheHGCMKuspdL-J1ltw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Uu2cUMneGMyaiAfG_IHwDQ&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false

:)DH66