Room-temperature superconductivity?

[tomclarke]

So, here is the experiment. A large number of quantum entangled particles are created and separated so that two rocket ships contain these entangled particles. Each rocket ship will have identical synchronized clocks. Testing of one entangled particle on one ship will cause its entangled paired particle on the other ship to become untangled and thereby the remote particle test performance will be known.

Tie the test performance on these entangled particles to one rocket ship's clock, say, every hour.

Now, accelerate one rocket ship to 90% of light speed relative to the other rocket ship.

Will both ships show the particle untangling taking place at the same time?

I hope I was clear in outlining the experiment.
Best regards

It is accepted that you can't signal faster than light using quantum entanglement, because the quantum probabilities do not allow such. If you could it would be a clear paradox because you could engineer a paradoxical timelike loop easily.

So "particles untangling at the same time" remains unmeasurable.

[johanfprins]

Could you point out where Einstein claimed this,

In the popular book that he wrote circa 1916 (?) which I think is entitled: Relativity: The Speical and General Theories.

it could be either bad translation or bad popularization of his theory.

It could be, but I doubt it.

Of course the clock doesn't slow down relative to a reference frame where it is stationary, there is a reason why it is called theory of relativity, not "time slowing down due to movement" theory.

So you agree that there cannot be a twin paradox since both twins are stationary within their respective refrence frames, and both their clocks must thus keep the same time. Why did Einstein not point out this obvious fact?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation
"In special relativity (or, hypothetically far from all gravitational mass), clocks that are moving with respect to an inertial system of observation are measured to be running slower. This effect is described precisely by the Lorentz transformation."

I agree with this but this does NOT mean that the one twin moving relative to the other twin ages more slowly. The Lorentz transformation gives, like any coordinate transformation, a distortion of what is REALLY happening within the reference frame from which you are transforming the events.

Thus, a ball moving perpendicular to the direction of relative motion will in one reference frame follow a linear path, while within the other reference frame it follows a curved path. The fact that the trransformed path changes from linear to being curved does not demand that when one observes the transformed curvedc path, the untransformed path is also curved.

Similarly, if the transformed time interval is longer within your reference frame, it does not mean that time is actually slower within your twin's reference frame when he moves with a speed v relative to you; and that therefore he must be ageing slower. It is impossible for him to age slower if the clock he carries with him keeps time at exactly the same rate as the clock that you are carrying with you.

In reference frame where the clock is stationary there is no movement, thus no time dilation, based on that the special theory of relativity doesn't seem to claim that "moving clocks go slower".

Amen: But it has been assumed by Einstein not to be the case when he argued why curvilinear coordinates must be used to model gravity. Thus by your own statement, Einstein must be wrong to have argued this.

[johanfprins]

So, here is the experiment. A large number of quantum entangled particles are created

Firstly there are no "particles" only waves which are incorrectly interpreted as being "particles" when they are separate waves; and as Einstein correctly pointed out in his paper on the EPR paradox, two such separate entities cannot communicate faster than the speed of light.

and separated so that two rocket ships contain these entangled particles.

When two, or more, separate wave-entities entangle, they become a single holistic wave which is in instantaneous contact with itself within the volume it occupies within three-dimensional space. To separate such a wave into two parts, so that one half can be placed on one rocket ship, and the other half on another rocket ship, you must first disentangle the single holistic wave into two separate holistic waves. Since they are now separate wave-entities, they cannot communicate faster than light speed. Thus, the rest of your thought experiment is according to my insight unfortunately not possible.

[johanfprins]

It is accepted

It was once also accepted that the earth is the centre of the universe. Thus to base your argument on what is "accepted" proves that you are not arguing science but blind dogma.

at you can't signal faster than light using quantum entanglement, because the quantum probabilities do not allow such.

What "probabilities"? This is nonsense! I can inject electrons within the single entangled electron wave which I can form between the surface of an n-type diamond and an anode, and the same number of electrons will be ejected at the other end within a time that is less than it will take an electron to move from one end to the other at the speed of light. If I thus modulate the rate at which I inject the electrons, this modulated information will appear at the other end faster than the speed of light.

If you could it would be a clear paradox because you could engineer a paradoxical timelike loop easily.

How?

[tomclarke]

It is accepted

It was once also accepted that the earth is the centre of the universe. Thus to base your argument on what is "accepted" proves that you are not arguing science but blind dogma.

at you can't signal faster than light using quantum entanglement, because the quantum probabilities do not allow such.

What "probabilities"? This is nonsense! I can inject electrons within the single entangled electron wave which I can form between the surface of an n-type diamond and an anode, and the same number of electrons will be ejected at the other end within a time that is less than it will take an electron to move from one end to the other at the speed of light. If I thus modulate the rate at which I inject the electrons, this modulated information will appear at the other end faster than the speed of light.

If you could it would be a clear paradox because you could engineer a paradoxical timelike loop easily.

How?

You'll have to give the QM description. But naively a single entangles electron can only have one interaction.

There is a research paper somewhere, I'll see if I can post it, but no promisses.

If you can signal FTL then in an appropriate FOR the signalling is timelike backewards. Therefore you can send info back in time, us it to trigger some causal mechnaism forward in time which paradoxically changes the signal. Timelike loop. Big no-no.

[Teemu]

In the popular book that he wrote circa 1916 (?) which I think is entitled: Relativity: The Speical and General Theories.

Ok found that section from Einstein's book, boldings are mine.

As judged from K, the clock is moving with the velocity v; as judged from this reference-body, the time which elapses between two strokes of the clock is not one second, but 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) seconds, i.e. a somewhat larger time. As a consequence of its motion the clock goes more slowly than when at rest.

Also found the original German version of it and it seemed about the same. But since he mentions the reference body from point of which the clock is moving, in the previous sentence, my guess would be that he just got sloppy and didn't repeat "as judged from this reference-body" in the next sentence. Though maybe he thought that "when at rest" would be long enough reference to reference body, since if it is at rest relative to a reference body then it is not moving in that reference body, and he chose to use that "when at rest" to avoid repetition of the previous sentence.

[johanfprins]

You'll have to give the QM description. But naively a single entangles electron can only have one interaction.

I have modelled this in detail in my book. A single electron is self-entangled and for this reason it can split into two parts which remain entangled: Each part moves through one slit of a double-slit diffractometer. When you measure the position of the electron-wave on the other side of the slits the two parts collapse into each other and for this reason they cannot interfere anymore to form a single electron wave which has the intensity distribution of a diffracted wave.

The electron phase that I extract from an n-type diamond consists of billions of electrons that have entangled. It is a kind of a macro chemical bond; just like a covalent bond is an entanglement of two electrons, a double bond four electrons, a triple bond six electrons, my superconducting phase has billions of electrons.

Like any superconducting phase must be, my phase is a lowest-energy ground-state substance. Thus, when injecting N electrons of energy (delta)E into it, one increases the energy of this ground state: It then has a time (delta)t to get rid of these extra electrons. "They" are thus ejected at the other contact after the time interval (delta)t. If this time-interval is less than the time required for an electron to move by light speed from one contact to the other, the injected electrons are "teleported" at a speed that is larger than the speed of light.

All superconduction is driven by (delta)E which is available for a limited time (delta)t. For this reason there is no kinetic energy that needs to dissipate and for this reason a current can flow with "zero resistance". Within the superconducting materials discovered to date (excluding my electron phase), the current flows by "hopping" of localised states where the energy for hopping comes from (delta)E for an allowed time (delta)t. Thus whereas for normal hopping conduction the energy is supplied by temperature fluctuations, for superconduction it is supplied by quantum fluctuations driving the hopping. It is also for the latter reason that a superconductor can only form after the material has passed through a conductor-insulator transition.

There is a research paper somewhere, I'll see if I can post it, but no promisses.

If you can signal FTL then in an appropriate FOR the signalling is timelike backewards. Therefore you can send info back in time, us it to trigger some causal mechnaism forward in time which paradoxically changes the signal. Timelike loop. Big no-no.

Yes this absolutely correct when you signal between two separate non-entangled waves, but if you have a substance that consists of many waves that have entangled to form a single continuous macro-wave (as I have generated by extracting electrons from an n-type diamond) , you can "teleport" material through it at a speed that is faster than the speed of light.

A bit of SciFi: What if dark matter consists of continuous, entangled matter waves? Might it then not be possible to "teleport" a spaceship through it at a speed faster than light speed?

[johanfprins]

Ok found that section from Einstein's book, boldings are mine.

As judged from K, the clock is moving with the velocity v; as judged from this reference-body, the time which elapses between two strokes of the clock is not one second, but 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) seconds, i.e. a somewhat larger time. As a consequence of its motion the clock goes more slowly than when at rest.

Also found the original German version of it and it seemed about the same. But since he mentions the reference body from point of which the clock is moving, in the previous sentence, my guess would be that he just got sloppy and didn't repeat "as judged from this reference-body" in the next sentence.

The problem is that he got more than sloppy, since he should have realised that this means that two clocks, each of which is stationary within one of the two reference frames moving relative to each other, must be keeping time at the same rate relative to their own intertial reference frames: And that therefore there cannot be a twin paradox; since the clocks of both twins are keeping exactly the same time. Einstein never refuted the twin paradox as he should have. This is amazing since he is still, according to me, the greatest physicsist that we have had during the 20th century. In comparison Bohr, Heisenberg and Born were midgets. It does prove, however, that Einstein was still human and could thus also make mistakes. In fact, if he were alive today, he would probably be the first to admit to this!

[tomclarke]

Ok found that section from Einstein's book, boldings are mine.

As judged from K, the clock is moving with the velocity v; as judged from this reference-body, the time which elapses between two strokes of the clock is not one second, but 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) seconds, i.e. a somewhat larger time. As a consequence of its motion the clock goes more slowly than when at rest.

Also found the original German version of it and it seemed about the same. But since he mentions the reference body from point of which the clock is moving, in the previous sentence, my guess would be that he just got sloppy and didn't repeat "as judged from this reference-body" in the next sentence.

The problem is that he got more than sloppy, since he should have realised that this means that two clocks, each of which is stationary within one of the two reference frames moving relative to each other, must be keeping time at the same rate relative to their own intertial reference frames: And that therefore there cannot be a twin paradox; since the clocks of both twins are keeping exactly the same time. Einstein never refuted the twin paradox as he should have. This is amazing since he is still, according to me, the greatest physicsist that we have had during the 20th century. In comparison Bohr, Heisenberg and Born were midgets. It does prove, however, that Einstein was still human and could thus also make mistakes. In fact, if he were alive today, he would probably be the first to admit to this!

Johan,

I have answered this issue before:
(1) The clocks can only be compared when colocated
(2) Two different FORs cannot have colocated coordinates. Therefore one of the two clocks at least must change FOR.

This breaks your paradox, because the elapsed time can be much smaller for the moving (or more correctly chnaging FOR) clock because it must change FOR, relative to the stationary (or more correctly non-accelerating) clock.

Nothing that Einstein says contradicts this amplification, which I guess must have been in his mind - he was no idiot.

[johanfprins]

Johan,

I have answered this issue before:
(1) The clocks can only be compared when colocated

The clocks have been synchronised when they were colocated, or else one cannot derive the Lorentz transformation. Within each of their respective reference frames they then keep exactly the same time. It is only after transforming these exact same times within each reference frame into the other refrence frame that the clocks keeps slower time WITHIN THE OTHER REFERENCE FRAME.

The ageing of a person is determined by the rate at which a clock, which HE/SHE carries on him/her changes. Not the rate at which this clock is observed to measure time within another reference frame. Thus, the clock with the one twin ticks away at exactly the same rate that the clock with the other twin ticks. So how in HELL can they age at differernt rates? Only in Alice's Wonderland can this happen. We are busy with physics not paranormal metaphysics!

(2) Two different FORs cannot have colocated coordinates. Therefore one of the two clocks at least must change FOR.

Correct, but this does not mean that the two clocks which are stationary relative to the two twins within the two FOR's keep different times. To claim this is obviously nonsensical paranormal metaphysics.

This breaks your paradox, because the elapsed time can be much smaller for the moving (or more correctly chnaging FOR) clock because it must change FOR, relative to the stationary (or more correctly non-accelerating) clock.

You are still reasoning nonsenseical paranormal metaphysics. If the clock rate on the clock with you is the same as the clock rate of the clock with your moving twin, it is physically impossible for your twin to age at a slower rate.

Nothing that Einstein says contradicts this amplification, which I guess must have been in his mind - he was no idiot.

Obviously he was not an idiot, but this does not mean that he was not human: Nonetheless it still astounds me that such a genius could have claimed that a transformed time coordinate is the same as the actual time coordinate within the reference frame of the "moving" twin from where the coordinate has been transformed.

As I have pointed out time and again this is the same as claiming that the transformed curved path of an object which is moving rectilineraly within the "moving" reference frame is also a curved path within the "moving" reference frame. It is not and NEVER will be!

[ScottL]

Wasn't this tested with atmoic clocks, one being on the ground, the other on a jet flown around the world at about 600mph?

[rcain]

Wasn't this tested with atmoic clocks, one being on the ground, the other on a jet flown around the world at about 600mph?

more recently also, and with much greater precision:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/329/5999/1630 - "Optical Clocks and Relativity" - C. W. Chou*, D. B. Hume, T. Rosenband and D. J. Wineland - sept 2010

Full article is available here - http://tf.boulder.nist.gov/general/pdf/2447.pdf

and a technical critique of the experiment here - http://staff.science.nus.edu.sg/~parwan ... icalEE.pdf - A REVIEW OF “OPTICAL CLOCKS AND RELATIVITY” - Chi Xin Ci Heather, Goh Wei Yang Leonard, Muhammad Nadjad Bin Abdul Rahim, Tan Zi Hua - National University of Singapore - 15 April 2011

although the phenomenological interpretations are still up for discussion, IMHO - so don't let that impede the debate here.

[johanfprins]

Wasn't this tested with atmoic clocks, one being on the ground, the other on a jet flown around the world at about 600mph?

more recently also, and with much greater precision:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/329/5999/1630 - "Optical Clocks and Relativity" - C. W. Chou*, D. B. Hume, T. Rosenband and D. J. Wineland - sept 2010

Full article is available here - http://tf.boulder.nist.gov/general/pdf/2447.pdf

and a technical critique of the experiment here - http://staff.science.nus.edu.sg/~parwan ... icalEE.pdf - A REVIEW OF “OPTICAL CLOCKS AND RELATIVITY” - Chi Xin Ci Heather, Goh Wei Yang Leonard, Muhammad Nadjad Bin Abdul Rahim, Tan Zi Hua - National University of Singapore - 15 April 2011

although the phenomenological interpretations are still up for discussion, IMHO - so don't let that impede the debate here.

Thank you for these references. Obviously when you compare the frequency of a "moving" clock RELATIVE to the frequency of a "stationary" clock by using light signals, you will obtain the time-dilation predicted by The Special Theory of Relativity. But this dilation does not actually occur within the inertial refrence frame of the "moving clock" since within its own inertial refrence frame the "moving clock" is also stationary. If it is not, it violates Galileo's "inviolate" postulate of inertia.

So, except for the actual slowing down of one of two stationary clocks within a gravitational field, this experiment did not prove that a "moving" clock, without any gravitational field, is going slower within its own inertial reference frame: The measurements were collated within the inertial reference of the laboratory. If they were collated within the inertial refrence frame of the moving "clock" it will be found that the laboratory clock is now ticking slower. If this is not the case, Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity will be wrong.

What I also suspect is that the gravitational effect on clock speed is NOT caused by acceleration within the gravitational field but by the intensity of the field. This is, however, directly proportional to acceleration within the gravitational field. But it is possible to accelerate clocks without changing the gravitational field: I thus suspect that if one places a clock on a very fast horizontally accelerating toboggan (so that this acceleration has nothing to do with a change in gravitational field strength) and then compare it afterwards with a clock which was not on the toboggan, there will be no difference in the total elapsed time on the two clocks.

I also suspect that within a very fast accelerating spaceship driven by engines and not gravitation, a beam of light will still follow a rectilinear path. Obviously, from another stationary spaceship relative to which the first spaceship is accelerating, the light beam on the first spaceship will be curved: But this curvature does not occur within the accelerating spaceship. Furthermore, a rectilear light beam within the stationary space ship will in turn be obserrved within the accelerating space ship as being curved. Furthermore, I suspectt that light must follow these curved paths with the speed of light c.

To model the bending of light around the sun, Einstein had to relax the condition that the speed of light has the same value c along any path it follows; since the speed of the light bending around the sun is less than c. This strongly indicates refraction of light within a gravitational field and not an effect that relates to relativity.

[tomclarke]

Johan,

I have answered this issue before:
(1) The clocks can only be compared when colocated

The clocks have been synchronised when they were colocated, or else one cannot derive the Lorentz transformation. Within each of their respective reference frames they then keep exactly the same time. It is only after transforming these exact same times within each reference frame into the other refrence frame that the clocks keeps slower time WITHIN THE OTHER REFERENCE FRAME.

The ageing of a person is determined by the rate at which a clock, which HE/SHE carries on him/her changes. Not the rate at which this clock is observed to measure time within another reference frame. Thus, the clock with the one twin ticks away at exactly the same rate that the clock with the other twin ticks. So how in HELL can they age at differernt rates? Only in Alice's Wonderland can this happen. We are busy with physics not paranormal metaphysics!

(2) Two different FORs cannot have colocated coordinates. Therefore one of the two clocks at least must change FOR.

Correct, but this does not mean that the two clocks which are stationary relative to the two twins within the two FOR's keep different times. To claim this is obviously nonsensical paranormal metaphysics.

This breaks your paradox, because the elapsed time can be much smaller for the moving (or more correctly chnaging FOR) clock because it must change FOR, relative to the stationary (or more correctly non-accelerating) clock.

You are still reasoning nonsenseical paranormal metaphysics. If the clock rate on the clock with you is the same as the clock rate of the clock with your moving twin, it is physically impossible for your twin to age at a slower rate.

Nothing that Einstein says contradicts this amplification, which I guess must have been in his mind - he was no idiot.

Obviously he was not an idiot, but this does not mean that he was not human: Nonetheless it still astounds me that such a genius could have claimed that a transformed time coordinate is the same as the actual time coordinate within the reference frame of the "moving" twin from where the coordinate has been transformed.

As I have pointed out time and again this is the same as claiming that the transformed curved path of an object which is moving rectilineraly within the "moving" reference frame is also a curved path within the "moving" reference frame. It is not and NEVER will be!

Johan,

I must have been unclear because you have completely misunderstood my point.

I'll try again.

(1) you can only compare clocks when they are at the same space-time position. Therefore to evaluate time dilation you need to have two clocks which colocate at two different times on their event lines. This is not possible without one at least of teh two clocks changing FOR.

(2) I claim that if one clock stays in its FOR and the other accerates away, then back (thereby changing FOR), the changing FOR clock will read slower when they are compared. this is not a paradox, since if the acceleration were symmetrical there would be no difference.

(3) This experiment, or something equivalent, is easily tested. I bet it has been. The effect of changing FOR can easily be disambiguated from any gravitational effects.

[johanfprins]

Johan,

I must have been unclear because you have completely misunderstood my point.

Hi Tom,
On the contrary, you have not been unclear at all since what you claim is what I have also taught my students for more than 40 years before I realised that it must be wrong. And in fact by using the Lorentz transformation correctly it can be proved to be wrong. To start off: Let me give you a simple thought experiment: Consider a rod with length L moving past at a speed v which has a clock that can trigger a laser pulse at the rear end and a mirror at the front. Assume that when the rear end passes you, you synchronise your clock with the clock on the rod which then triggers a laser pulse to move along the rod to the mirror and to move back. How long will it take on your clock for the laser pulse to reach the mirror and how long to return to the laser?

I'll try again.

(1) you can only compare clocks when they are at the same space-time position.

Not true. Two identical perfect clocks which are stationary within an inertial reference frame do, no matter how far apart they are, keep time at exactly the same rate. They can also easily be synchronized to show exactly the same time. They are not at the same space-time position at all but keeping exactly the same time.

Therefore to evaluate time dilation you need to have two clocks which colocate at two different times on their event lines. This is not possible without one at least of the two clocks changing FOR.

They do colocate when they are synchronized when passing each other. And it is easy to determine the time elapsed by each clock within its own inertial reference frame and then to compare this. In fact I have done this in a previous post when I derived the times elapsed on each clock within its own inertial reference frame when two identical spaceships, of equal length pass each other. And the result is that the elapsed time is exactly the same on both clocks.

(2) I claim that if one clock stays in its FOR and the other accerates away, then back (thereby changing FOR), the changing FOR clock will read slower when they are compared. this is not a paradox, since if the acceleration were symmetrical there would be no difference.

And as I have just posted above, I strongly suspect that the time rate of a clock within its own reference frame will not change owing to acceleration of the clock. I also proposed a simple experiment which can be used to test this hypothesis.

(3) This experiment, or something equivalent, is easily tested. I bet it has been.

Where and when: Please do not quote the clocks being flown around the world. The clocks must move or accelerate without any change in the gravitational field they experience.

The effect of changing FOR can easily be disambiguated from any gravitational effects.

Correct! Why has this not yet been done?

I am enjoying our conversation: It has now become clear that we need an experiment to determine who is correct or not correct. And as you have pointed out such an experiment should not be difficult to do. I predict that any motion of a clock including acceleration, outside a gravitational field will not affect the clock rate within the reference frame within which the clock remains stationary. Thus if the two twins experienced thye same gravitational field while travelling apart their clocks will show exactly the same time when they meet up again: No matter which one accelerated or whether the acceleration was symmetrical or not.