swansont

! Moderator Note Threads merged

I didn’t, either In that experiment. But that’s not the only way to do it. You can polarize it before, and then not do anything to the positions of the polarizers while obtaining which-path information. As I have pointed out before. If you want to show that polarization is the culprit, you would need to explain how that is possible.

Nobody said anything like that. There’s nothing legitimate to be gained by making the problem more complex. There is nothing about relativity that says anything about the number of cars being relative.

Why would air move, without a pressure difference? PV = nRT is approximately correct. If the lungs expand, V goes up, P goes down.

No, there is one train. If you had two, one could crash and the other not, but every observer has to agree events, like whether it crashed. The observers will disagree on what time and how far away the event occurred.

I don’t see how. The train isn’t in two places at once.

I must say you’re doing a poor job of explaining this. Especially since, as I said, you can do the experiment in such a way that you don’t change the polarization in the double-slit. You need to explain how that happens.

There are measurements you can do that show that the correlation is not because the particles were secretly in that state all along, which means they are entangled https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem

Our current understanding of physics is that this is not possible. It’s not an engineering barrier to be overcome.

Yes. The length is relative (hence “relativity”). It depends on the observer.

If you have entangled spins the spins are correlated, but undetermined before measurement. e.g. if you measure an electron spin up, you know its entangled partner is spin down, but they did not have those spins prior to the measurement, unlike in a classical correlated system.

Yes, that’s the interpretation. Why do you keep harping on about polarization?

But when you say double-slit experiment, it implies the basic experiment - it does not imply quantum eraser. Similarly, a quantum eraser experiment does not imply delayed choice. These are all distinct experiments and should be properly identified. The use of polarization is used to identify the path, but not in a way that compromises the interference, as shown by the fact that you get interference when you don’t know the path. You can do which-path experiments where the path is identified by looking at an entangled photon created before the interference. So the which-path information has nothing to do with altering polarizations in the double-slit path.

It's not one length. Go back to the example of kinetic energy you have ignored. In my frame, the train is at rest, and thus no kinetic energy. In your frame it is moving, and has a KE of, say 10^7 Joules. How can it have two values of kinetic energy? (answer: because KE is a frame-dependent quantity)

AFAIK they were strapped into the seats, so the beam would be going perpendicular to the plane's motion. But that would have no measurable effect on the outcome according to SR. No radioactive decay is involved. It would be transverse in this case. But if you're thinking about some preferred frame, then you have to account for the fact that trips at one time of day would be in one direction, and trips 12 hours later would be in the opposite. The time dilation was far larger than the measurement error from those clocks. If you think that the accelerations played a large part, that's one more thing that's up to you to demonstrate. From an relativistic point of view, the effect is minimal. The gravitational drop in the several millisecond travel of a thermal cesium beam is quite small. External electric and magnetic fields are shielded; these would have a large effect on the clock's performance if they were not. Yes; the earth's rotation is taken into account in the analysis. The motion about the sun is not as the effect is (or was, for those clocks and such a short experiment) too small to measure Can you calculate the angular speed of this to show that it's "rapid"? The gravity to show its hugeness? (hint: how long does it take for us to compete 2*pi of a revolution?) Feel free to show this. This is a graph from the Hafele-Keating results (Science, New Series, Vol. 177, No. 4044. (Jul. 14, 1972), pp. 168-170) Fig 2 from p169. Seems to me the scatter in the timing signal is smaller than ∆t. (edit: and they cite the experimental error in their results) It's likely you would need to show some model demonstrating that you would expect a result before anyone does this experiment. Not if relativity is correct

Who was doing the measuring? The answer is frame-dependent

Um, about that... https://physicsworld.com/a/the-double-slit-experiment/

! Moderator Note 1. You didn't quote or otherwise indicate that your question was directed at the OP, and 2. Spin polarization is not a wave-particle issue, so it's off-topic for that discussion. There's no point in inviting more, possibly confused discussion on top of what already exists.

The explanation is that the spin of the electron is quantized. Can you re-phrase the question?

I stored my belongings for several months after I finished grad school and went home to live until I got a postdoc. Cheaper than moving it across country and back. They were fenced in and my unit had a lock. And I wasn't storing anything that had a high resale value.

Is that more or less irrational than expecting quantum behavior to be exactly like classical behavior, when quantum mechanics was developed because the behavior did not follow classical physics? The descriptions we give are hampered by the fact that people like to hold on to familiar, classical ideas, like particles and waves. Quantum particles behave like quantum particles, but that doesn't help bridge the gap of understanding, so we use the observation that they have elements of both wave behavior and particle behavior, and one will be present depending on how you are looking at them, similar to the example Markus has provided above. QM has more example of trying to explain some effect using classical terminology (I'm thinking of tunneling as a prime example). They are more like analogies than actual models, and always have limitations.

That's not present in the standard double-slit experiment, which you had asked about. If you had orthogonal polarizations in the double-slit, you would not see interference. Which is probably why people don't do this, unless they're trying to show the effect of the polarization on interference.

You also have an infinite combinations of initial conditions. How could you guarantee that you would recreate the exact conditions required? What if one of the influences was the temperature of the CMB, which could not be replicated at a later time? There are probably many variables that would not be the same. Composition of the matter available for star and planet formation, for another example - they would tend to have more heavy elements in them as we cycle through generations of stars.

Contradictions are not simple. It's not surprising that they arise because we are discussing special relativity, which is not Newtonian, and you can't mix-and-match models in this way. (it can lead to contradictions) It could be that whatever questions/confusion you have arise from such contradictions. What is needed is a self-consistent picture of what is going one. Newtonian physics is, and so is SR. The latter matches observation, the former fails to do so under situations like we are discussing. Are you going to address my example of kinetic energy, and whether that is an illusion for Bob? The issue is that length and time are absolutes in a Newtonian world, so we aren't used to thinking of them as variables. But you can derive the effects, as Einstein did, based on c being invariant — which is another thing that we're not used to in Newtonian physics — and you can also look at the experiments that confirm it. Most of them involve time, because time is easier to measure at the precision demanded by such experiments.

It’s a basis of one of your speculations and not relevant here. You refer to maths but there are no equations in that paper.