In GR eventhought in empty space there is always energy which fill all the space with negative pressure. So space , time and energy have mathematical nature and empirical realities.
I can proove it as follows:
4-vector momentum= universal constant times 4-vector wave-vector (duality wave-corpuscle)
Split the duality wave-corpuscle in two dualities:
4-vector momentum= universal constant times 4-vector identity
4-vector wave-vector= universal constant times 4-vector identity
What is 4-vector identity?:
4-vector identity= (inertial time times celerity of light, inertial time times speed of corpuscle)
What is inertial time ?:
Inertial time=Inertia of the corpuscle/universal constant
What is inertia of the corpuscle ?:
Inertia of the corspucle= Energie of the corpuscle/square speed of light
Don't think that the universal constant in the definition of inertial time is equal to c3/G: it can be different, it can be a new universal constant and gives a 5th dimension for the corpuscle.
Quantum Physics and the End of Reality by Sabine Hossenfelder and Carlo Rovelli
The way that vision and cameras work ,there has to transmission of the stimuli, which lead to production of seen light from material object source to observer device or organism. That means there is an intermediate stage, where the stimuli exist in the physical environment unseen prior to detection. By stimuli here I'm referring to light' quanta.'
123 what do you find insightful in their comments?
The misunderstanding, from which the measurement problem and supposed entanglement arise, occurs early on before the experiment. There is the assumption that outcome states occur randomly at measurement (with correlation of outcomes of particle pairs measured in the same way.) Rather than considering that the existing particles condition, ,unmeasured, at creation of the pair affects what is found at measurement as well as the 'how to measure' decision. 'Entanglement' is not happening it just seems so due to the preexisting condition of the particles.
- Edited
Georgina Woodward
That is correct, as far as it goes. But it does not go nearly far enough: the "existing particles condition", at the heart of the problem, is a very specific condition, concerning exactly how "identical" the particle pairs really are. As it turns out, "identical" twins behave very differently than "fraternal" twins, in Bell Tests of the EPR Paradox; resulting in precisely the difference observed, between "classical" and "quantum" correlations.
Robert McEachern
By the condition of the particles ,I am intending to imply something about how they have been,,, prepared, determining their absolute , unmeasured trajectories through absolute space. Sorry for being ambiguous.
The root cause of the difference is , IMO , the outcome states do not exist as neat proportions of types that can be counted out .They become what they are found to be. Imagine a basket ball launching device. Back `to back with a device of the same type . Both mounted on a revolving platform . The center of rotation is an imagined point where middle of the adjoining backs of the devices meet the ground. Surrounding this apparatus is a circular court and 3 hoops distributed around one hemisphere and directly opposite each hoop is a matching hoop around the other hemisphere. Launcher 1 is set to fire at a, b ,or c before each test. Launcher 2 automatically takes up position .Firing at a', b', or c'. Whether the ball goes though the hoop or not there can be an expectation of correlation with the 'partner' launched together. It is only strange if the whole launching business is ignored and the basket scores are assumed to choose to be correlated as if the basketballs are aware of each other. There will be errors in practice. Maybe imperfect pair production and Non pair particles thought to be pairs for example. But that is not the source of the problems with the theory. There is obviously something wrong with saying before deciding aim and throwing ,the outcome basket, if one is to be scored.
- Edited
determining their absolute , unmeasured trajectories through absolute space
That is irrelevant to a Bell test. In a Bell test, the two basketballs would always be fired along the exact same, known trajectory, in exactly opposite directions.
The whole point of the tests, is that the two Basketballs are also spinning - in exactly opposite, but unknown, random orientations. Your job, is to determine the unknown orientation of each ball's spin axis (either "up" or "down"), in 3 dimensional space, and then correlate one ball's orientation measurements, against the other ball's orientation measurements. The whole point of the test, is to demonstrate that "quantum" objects, will not exhibit the same correlations, that basketballs do.
My point is: Basketballs are not the only type of "classical" objects existing in our universe. Coins also exist. And if some coins are "manufactured" in accordance with Shannon's peculiar recipe, for one single-bit-of-information, then unlike basketballs, those coins will exhibit the same correlations as "quantum" objects.
- Edited
Robert McEachern
Sorry again for being ambiguous and unclear. I wasn't trying to replicate a Bell test.
I've set up the thought experiment so trajectory, relative to position of detectors, can be adjusted. The particle source could be fixed and the detectors moved instead ,to get the same effect. I think I need to show that even though the outcome states are only manifest upon production they are nevertheless correlated.
A certain gentleman always wears odd socks ,one blue one red. Gifting him such a pairing: if the first parcel arrives with red sock inside, the parcel containing the other must have a blue sock inside. The socks are existing things. Like cakes from the same batch and recipe exist, a caterpillar grown fat and leaf exist, similar existing injuries from same dangerous existing obstacle .We could instead send a parcel containing a card saying basketball score for device 1. The other will be the score for device 2. Even not yet manifest they are necessarily correlated. But not entangled. Neither score knows anything of the other, before or after manifestation, and is not choosing anything.
- Edited
I wasn't trying to replicate a Bell test.
And therein lies the problem. If you do not replicate the effect, observed in a Bell test, then you almost certainly have not replicated (or identified) the cause for the effect, either.
A certain gentleman always wears odd socks ,one blue one red...
Physicists already understand why Bertlmann’s socks "are necessarily correlated. But not entangled." Hence, they have no further interest in such experiments. But the correlations observed in Bell tests are different. The only question of any on-going interest is, why? What causes "quantum" objects to correlate in ways, that are totally unlike Bertlmann’s socks, or any other previously known, "classical" system?
Robert McEachern
The socks, and other examples of correlation given there, already exist. We could call it embodied correlation. The basket scores don't exist, yet will be correlated, because of how the particle pairs are produced, when they are manifest. In that way they are unlike the other examples of correlation.
There is never 'entanglement' whatever the scale.
they are unlike the other examples of correlation
And precisely because they indeed are, unlike "quantum correlations", they are of no interest, to anyone primarily concerned with identifying, what could ever cause effects that are like, rather than unlike, "quantum correlations".
Robert McEachern
Surfaces like coin face s pre exist measurement . They aren't produced at measurement, The basket scores are unlike the other correlation examples given; socks, caterpillar and leaf, injuries'/obstacle but like quantum correlation, in that newly generated regard.
They aren't produced at measurement
The counts from every detector, are inevitably produced "in that newly generated regard."
Robert McEachern
Some things are as they are found to be, because of what exists, such as the chemical pigment of the socks, that make it appear red, 'looking at it a different way does not alter the pigment. likewise whether a coin is damaged or not, looking this or that way is not causing a change to the material. Whether a basket is scored does matter how the detector (basket) is oriented. I haven't made it clear in the preceding discussion.
Correlation that is within classical expectation may be uninteresting to quantum physicist, as you say. It is the extra correlation that's interesting to them. I'm not convinced the extra is correlation at all, but co-occurrence. Happening together but not because of a factor in common in pair formation , or influence of one upon the other. Or choice by the particles. Rotating a polarize affects how the ‘light’ interacts with the polarize. More ‘light’ passing through will give more detection. Therefore more co occurrence of detection. Different orientation of detector should have different names for positive detection. Emphasizing that all positive detentions, from same orientation tests and different orientation. are not equivalent. This is showing the results of specific kinds of interaction with specialized materials or apparatus occur not general behaviour of sub atomic particles. It is more likely a consequence the specific circumstance of interaction than the particles choosing co-occurrence of particular outcomes.
- Edited
It is the extra correlation that's interesting... Happening together but not because of a factor in common in pair formation...
The "extra correlation" happens, precisely because of what is not "in common in pair formation."
Which would be a logical impossibility, if the pair actually were identical. But the assumption that they are actually identical (AKA indistinguishable), turns out to be false. That is the problem, that has befuddled physicists, for an entire century. The pair are similar (fraternal twins), but not identical (identical twins). A slightly different pattern of noise, on the surface of a pair of "blurry" coins, is all that it takes, to create the "extra correlation."
Robert McEachern
Misidentification, allowing more photons to pass that should be stopped or more to be stopped that should pass ,skewing the results away from random chance is a possibility. but why assume it is due to a feature of the particles themselves. why not due to the variable transmittance of polarizers as they are rotated. The extra correlation actually being co-occurrence rather than correlation .
- Edited
why assume it is due to a feature of the particles themselves.
There is no assumption! That is the entire point, that you consistently fail to understand; In the purely classical experiment, the coins were constructed to have exactly that property - because that is what a bit of information is - a packet of noise, riding upon a carrier.
Just think of what determines the value of any actual coin - it is not the physical "stuff", the metal substance; the metal is just the carrier of the "information" being used to determine the coin's value - but the actual information itself, is encoded, entirely within the markings on the surface - the "noise."
Shannon's greatest discovery, was the realization, that in order to be reliably detected - for any completely deterministic behavior to ever emerge, in a noisy environment - the "information" must be encoded to have, the statistical properties of white noise! In other words, instead of a picture of an actual "Head" and "Tail", you must use two different patterns of white noise, to represent/encode the "Head" and Tail" - because the noise-like encodings can be much more reliably detected, than any actual picture!
Hence, your "extra correlation" arises entirely from the fact that the auto-correlation of noise-like sequences, generate more reliably detectable, large peaks, than any other known type of encoding. Which is why "Mother Nature" appears to use them, to generate deterministic behaviors; and She generates them, out of the very Chaos itself - the noise!
And it can be amazingly easy for deterministic behaviors to emerge from the Chaos; rather than wasting time searching for it; just create it yourself! (“You” being Mother Nature), out of pure noise!
This explains well
Your [Daily Equation #21: Bell's Theorem and the Non-locality of the Universe
](https://)youtu.be/UZiwtfrisTQ
Untested there is no definite spin state as the 'seen this way' relative perspective has not been decided and applied. the particle is spinning though in absolute space as a part of the singular pattern of existence ,that does not have a singular viewpoint. So it is not true that it has a singular (relative) spin in 3d , giving immediate (spooky) correlation. Instead, the same relative perspective is instantly applied to both, when choice of same measurement orientation is chosen. We need not assume that having pre existing states is the macroscopic norm. We are just accustomed to a having a relative perspective of objects or imagining a relative perspective applying to a physics scenario. We assume 3d space is where things happen but it is actually absolute space as any possible viewpoint could be applied giving a different but equally valid state of the observed/measured or even many seemingly contradictory states-each being valid for their own context. This is not many worlds but many possible perspectives. Prior to choosing a singular perspective to apply.
Georgina Woodward
Relativity applies, There really is not one correct or true state description obtainable but the state description obtained for an object or particle depends upon the viewpoint used to obtain it, the 'seen like this; proviso that affixes the outcome to the context in which it was obtained. it is a relative product that can be imagined in 3d product space but that is not where the particle, an actual physical entity exists.
The 3 orientations of detector, when used can be thought of as 3 viewpoints. Each gives an outcome that describes the binary feature investigated as it (most closely) seems from that way.
of 'looking.
- Edited
Georgina Woodward
I mean by relativity applies "defined relative to a frame of reference ['seen this way'] and that space and time are relative rather than absolute concepts:" dictionary.com My addition in brackets.