Mordred

That is a poor way to describe statistical mathematics. In point of detail any probability function has a very useful purpose. That purpose is to provide a full range of possible answers or account for the full possible set of outcomes. Some things in nature (in particular in the quantum regime) cannot be locked down to a single value answer but will have a likely-hood of a range of answers. Lets try an example. lets say your goal is to mathematically predict where a ball will stop and provide the exact location of where the ball will stop when you roll it down a gravel hill. With factors such rocks, gravel amount of initial force delivered to the ball, etc etc. The best you will be able to do is predict a range of possible locations of where that ball will stop you also would only be able to provide a range of possible paths taken by the same ball. Each time you perform the experiment the ball will choose a slightly different path and stop at different locations. this is where probability functions come into play, Another example is the Feymann path integrals, The Euler Langrangian gives the probability of all possible paths. Up to this point mathematically you can only provide a probability of possible outcomes. This is inherent in many classical systems as well as quantum systems. Once you perform the experiment. you have determined the path taken as well as the end point. So that probability function collapses into a determined mathematical state. in entanglement its identical. you do not know which entangled particle you have whether or not its spin up or spin down however you know you have a 50% probability it could be spin up or spin down. So you write that as a probability function. (the entangled superposition state). Once you measure the particle you know you have a spin up, and the other particle must be spin down. the probability function is no longer needed as you have measured a determined state.

Sigh lets try a different angle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Michelson-morley_calculations.svg see image here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson–Morley_experiment its in essence the same mathematics same relation you can see the image and how v-c and v+c is applied

photon propogator \[\frac{i}{k^2}[-g^{\mu\nu}+(1-\zeta)\frac{k^\mu k\nu}{k^2}]\] in Feymann gauge \(\zeta=1\) gives \[-\frac{i}{k^2}g^{\mu\nu}\] polarization states of photon \[\epsilon_1=\begin{pmatrix}0\\1\\0\\0\end{pmatrix}\] \[\epsilon_2=\begin{pmatrix}0\\0\\1\\0\end{pmatrix}\] normalization given by \(\epsilon_1 \cdot \epsilon_2=g^{\mu\nu}\) Electron/positron propogator \[\frac{i(\gamma^\mu q_\mu+m)}{q^2-m^2}\] delta function \((2\pi)^4\varphi ( p_1-p_2-q)\)

why would you believe the rod is not moving when it shows it directly in the math you just posted ? What do you think the v-c and v+c is all about. I even spent time telling you this yesterday. The rod length is static does not mean the rod isn't moving. The static implies what is now called Born rigidity. In other words he isn't applying the SR Lorentz contraction at this stage. At this stage he is directly examining Classical physics. You don't seem to get that/ \(Observer A (train direction given by- V)\longrightarrow Observer B\) does that help ?

You only get banned for violations of the Site rules. If a thread in speculations does not meet the requirements in the links I posted on page one. The thread gets locked. That is not the same as being banned.

Any wavefunction that describes a probability isn't real to begin with but mathematical. The superposition function of an entangled pair is such an example of a strictly mathematical wavefunction.

wow you simply refuse to see the math directly in front of you and how it pertains directly to the equation in section 2 of Einstein's paper. This has become a pointless waste of my time. Enjoy your misconceptions.

its not the rod length that's important in relativity of simultaneity. It is the interval length. For someone who claimed to understand SR better than I do I would have expected you to know and understood that as the interval length is involved in nearly every transformation of SR as well as Galilean relativity. for the record it also directly applies to normal everyday Doppler shift.

And that's just about enough attitude from one person I will tolerate. If you can't understand how the interval length is applied in Einstein's paper which myself and others have pointed out there is no point going further. You really should have studied Galilean relativity. You will not accept or understand what is contained in section 2 of the article. There is no strawman about it. The strawman argument is in your denials and attitude which I have had enough of Galilean transformations 101... \[\acute{t}=t\] \[\acute{x}=x-vt\] y=y z=z perhaps you should familiarize yourself with that while your at it study Galilean invariance

start of nucleosynthesis \[\rho_r c^2=\frac{3}{32\pi}\frac{c^2}{G_N}t^{-2}\] \[\rho_r c^2=\frac{3}{32\pi}(\rho c^2)_{PL}(\frac{t_{PL}}{t})\] \[K_b T\simeq 0.46 E_{PL}(\frac{t}{t_{PL}})^{-1/2}\] \[t_s\simeq \frac{10^{20}}{[T(K)]^2}\]\[\simeq (T_{bbn}=10^9 K)\] roughly \(10^2) seconds after BB

This directly applies to \[t_b-t_a=\frac{r_{AB}}{v-c},,,\acute{t_a}-t_b\frac{r_{AB}}{v+c}\] given in section2 of the article were discussing. https://www.physics.umd.edu/courses/Phys606/spring_2011/einstein_electrodynamics_of_moving_bodies.pdf though in my case I added a stationary observer M

Oh boy so you didn't consider the interval length ct .That's obviously why you didn't understand what v-c and c+v were being used for. It is the interval length being applied not just the length of the train. Perhaps we should examine that first under Galilean relativity. take your train lets place Alice (A) at the rear Bob at the front (B) and have observer at mid point M. The train is moving at V relative to observer M. As both observers agree on the velocity of c then they will disagree on the Relative length given by the interval. Hence \(T_{A}= c-v_A\) and \(T_{B}=c+v_B\) This is directly applied using Galilean relativity and not SR, where v is much less than c. When v approaches c then the relativity effects of SR come into play. I'm going to stop here to make sure you can at least agree on this under Galilean relativity. as the interval is \(ct\) it has dimensionality of length hence using the interval time in replacement of length. There is no point going further if your not clear on Galilean relativity itself.

no it is not misguided to use the mathematics of a theory correctly when examining that theory. You don't make judgements on a theory without correctly applying its mathematics. Anyway I will first enjoy my morning coffee before showing how this is examined correctly under SR.

If you stop to listen for a change you might get the answer. ThoughI have had to ignore your insulting behavior far too many times in this thread that I really don't know why I even bother. After I eat and have my morning coffee I will show how SR does the electrodynamics of moving objects which is the essence of the examination your applying here. Of course he applies classical physics but you chose to ignore where he deviates from Galiliean relativity transforms.

You mention SR being wrong numerous tunes here but you didn't correctly applying SR. You didn't properly do its transforms so naturally you were not getting the correct answers. Instead you provided judgments and claims of it being in error by making errors in your examination. Secondly you specifically asked a question. "What is the function of c-v and c+v which I specifically answered.

Your examination of SR is wrong because you are not correctly applying the transforms of SR.

Your analysis for starters is missing a key ingredient with the Lorentz transforms. Where is the length contraction ? There are no rigid rods in SR Its late atm so I will look at this further tomorrow but I will answer one of your questions now. t The functions v-c and v+c applies to the observer on the embankment and directly to gaining relativity of simultaneaty. take two flashes of light emitted from A and B the relativity of simultaneity to an observer on the embankment can be preserved using the Doppler shift relation you posted though this may be a better form to see that if you contract ct (part of the Lorentz transform being the length contraction)by the factor v-c the ct interval length is also dilated to the other emitter via v+c to the observer midway between emitters A and B to the observer at M on the embankment. If you ignore the length contraction aspects you will of course get the wrong answers. I will have more time to go over this in more detail tomorrow

Lol not quite there yet

There is getting to be a decent number of papers on the application. I've been running across them quite often. I haven't heard of any tests done yet. Largely still in the proposal stages.

That is the more common proposed methods to apply quantum entanglement cryptology that I have encountered. At this point in time quantum cryptology is more of a speculative application. Thus far I haven't heard of any actual tests of its use.

In essence yes that a succinct way to describe it.

Oh now I'm a gang leader, did it never occur to you that everyone posting in this thread literally has their own opinion ? Anyways I would advise you to take into consideration the mod note in the post prior to this one. Quit wasting time with fruitless accusations

Think of it this way the applications in that paper don't describe encrypted messages. They describe means of detecting security breaches. It's something on the order of error detection methods used by computers today. Older examples being checksum or Cyclic redundancy checks.

Well said...+1

Not if you send numerous entangled photons. When Alice examines her photon stream Bob also examines his. If the photons are not opposite to one another on every pair then you would know you had corruption or a security breach Here is some of the encryption methods that have been suggested. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2003.07907 The easiest example the paper gives is through parametric down conversion. You will know the initial frequencies but once the beam passes through the beam splitter you wouldn't know which polarity is sent until you examine. From this you can apply the conservation laws and expect the opposite polarity at end. If you font have the opposite polarity at each end then you know something occurred to interfere with the signal.