All clear to me: lacking elementary notion of physics, and the ability to abstract simple concepts, you are trolling.
Good luck!
That's not the way that things work here, unless you have a better/proper answer, is you who are trolling.
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
Sometimes we think we are communicating well because we are using the same laguage but in fact we often have some distortion, some harmonics that makes it imperfect. There are also some people that from time to time apear rude, it is their nature. These forums become very entertaining! 😀
Last edited:
Quoting from the article linked above:
"This phenomenon of geodesic deviation means that inertial frames of reference do not exist globally as they do in Newtonian mechanics and special relativity. However, the general theory reduces to the special theory over sufficiently small regions of spacetime, where curvature effects become less important and the earlier inertial frame arguments can come back into play.[51][52] Consequently, modern special relativity is now sometimes described as only a "local theory".[53]"
That's why popilin's straw man is irrelevant.
We can put two clocks relatively close next to each other, in full earth gravity, and there won't be any significant (typically far below the allowed error of the experiment) relative differences between these clocks.
You could do the same on the Moon, on Neptune, at Lagrange or saddle points in outer space ... doesn't matter.
There is no need for global inertial frames, or even for perfect local inertial frames.
The paper I've linked before and many other experiments prove special relativity and also general relativity.
From that experiment the accuracy is down to a couple m/s and reality beautifully matches the time dilation equation. Accounting for earth's gravity wouldn't make any difference between the clocks in those experiment's results.
"This phenomenon of geodesic deviation means that inertial frames of reference do not exist globally as they do in Newtonian mechanics and special relativity. However, the general theory reduces to the special theory over sufficiently small regions of spacetime, where curvature effects become less important and the earlier inertial frame arguments can come back into play.[51][52] Consequently, modern special relativity is now sometimes described as only a "local theory".[53]"
That's why popilin's straw man is irrelevant.
We can put two clocks relatively close next to each other, in full earth gravity, and there won't be any significant (typically far below the allowed error of the experiment) relative differences between these clocks.
You could do the same on the Moon, on Neptune, at Lagrange or saddle points in outer space ... doesn't matter.
There is no need for global inertial frames, or even for perfect local inertial frames.
The paper I've linked before and many other experiments prove special relativity and also general relativity.
From that experiment the accuracy is down to a couple m/s and reality beautifully matches the time dilation equation. Accounting for earth's gravity wouldn't make any difference between the clocks in those experiment's results.
Last edited:
Btw, I recently stumbed over a video that deals exactly with what I said in response to Jay's "it's exactly about light" confusion, just a lot more eloquent and in depth:
The Speed of Light is NOT About Light | Space Time | PBS Digital Studios
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msVuCEs8Ydo
edit: They also have an entire playlist on relativity, but it's not for the faint hearted. 😀
The Speed of Light is NOT About Light | Space Time | PBS Digital Studios
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msVuCEs8Ydo
edit: They also have an entire playlist on relativity, but it's not for the faint hearted. 😀
Last edited:
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
The need for exotic matter was only invoked in order to act a source of negative energy density needed to sustain a large wormhole. Quantum field theory allows for the possibility of negative energy density (relative to the general vacuum of space) and the experimental evidence for this might be the Casimir Effect. Interestingly, the Casimir effect is gets stronger on small length scales, thus being consistent with the idea that quantum sized worm-holes might exist between entangled pairs as a means to allow the entangled particles to communicate with each other almost instantaneously despite being separated by vast distances in our space.
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
And I'll offer some further thoughts.
There have been suggestions that electrons have no inner structure, they are a fundamental 'particle' because they are a form of 'black hole' - an entity with mass but otherwise featureless. A photon is trapped at the event horizon in a resonant state in which the electric field component extends outward to give the electron its property of 'negative charge'. The connection I am making is that a black hole is closely related to the worm hole in terms of mathematical solutions to the field equations of General Relativity.
Taking this further.
Every electron is an entangled pair already, in which the associated anti-particle at the 'other' end of the worm hole is folded up inside the electron and it's presence is not seen because it is effectively inside an event horizon.
There have been suggestions that electrons have no inner structure, they are a fundamental 'particle' because they are a form of 'black hole' - an entity with mass but otherwise featureless. A photon is trapped at the event horizon in a resonant state in which the electric field component extends outward to give the electron its property of 'negative charge'. The connection I am making is that a black hole is closely related to the worm hole in terms of mathematical solutions to the field equations of General Relativity.
Taking this further.
Every electron is an entangled pair already, in which the associated anti-particle at the 'other' end of the worm hole is folded up inside the electron and it's presence is not seen because it is effectively inside an event horizon.
Okay. I know too little about worm/black-holes to say whether this is even possible. I'd assume that the wormhole, no matter how small, would require some stable energy source. Virtual particles or the particle itself providing that makes no sense to me.
Yes, the electron is categorized as an elementary particle. Tests that would reveal a substructure have failed.
I don't think electrons even could be anything like a black hole, either due to their relativistic size and mass or due to having no spatial extent at all. Anyway, entanglement also works with photons that have no mass and also no known (possible?) substructure.
Last edited:
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
Why would it require energy ?
As far as I know, there is no physical law preventing a black hole being as small as an electron (although there would be a need to stabilize it from self-evaporation).
Do electrons have no spatial extent ? - think wave-particle duality
Perhaps entangled photons are an example of 'naked quantum wormholes' with no associated electron/positron.
Because otherwise the universe would be full of wormholes?
Sure, but you also need the mass which a photon doesn't have.
I'm not even sure what that means, but these wormholes or black holes you suggested certainly have never been observed.
Bigun's obviously on a bit wormhole/black hole schtick so anything that can fit that view is going to be...
WRT Particle-wave duality: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7OEzyEfzgg
WRT Particle-wave duality: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7OEzyEfzgg
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
No quarks in an electron, 3 quarks makes a boson, such as a proton.
Anyhow, schtick or not, we don't yet have the physics to explain fully the basis of entanglement and I'm repeating here one fuzzy-idea of what could be an avenue of exploration - quantum worm holes.
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/...antum-entangled-black-holes-says-new-research
The idea of electrons being black holes is not new of course. The idea likely surfaced several times in the past. It's an idea that has not been disproven, partly because our physics is not mature enough to describe these things adequately.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_electron
Anyhow, schtick or not, we don't yet have the physics to explain fully the basis of entanglement and I'm repeating here one fuzzy-idea of what could be an avenue of exploration - quantum worm holes.
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/...antum-entangled-black-holes-says-new-research
The idea of electrons being black holes is not new of course. The idea likely surfaced several times in the past. It's an idea that has not been disproven, partly because our physics is not mature enough to describe these things adequately.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_electron
Yeah but no. I think that any attempt at an explanation that doesn't work for photons or other objects than can also be entangled is a dead end.
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
It may be more basic than that, photons maybe the instruments of entanglement - the exchange of photons between electrons is what entangles them in the first place.
If we could entangle pairs of electrons between two output tubes, might we create a balanced PP amplifier 😀
If we could entangle pairs of electrons between two output tubes, might we create a balanced PP amplifier 😀
Photons are the instrument of electromagnetism. They can't be the instrument of entanglement, as photons can be entangled but photons don't interact with photons: EM is a linear theory.Bigun said:
I thought magnetic induction would also be a manifestation of that as well and any other type of EM wave.
Manifestation of what? Photons don't interact directly with other photons. They can only interact indirectly via other particles, those with a charge or magnetic moment.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.