You are mixing up two different conflicts. Einstein's semi-opposition to Boltzmann's non-dynamical approach was detached from his mostly philosophical disbelief in the standard interpretation of entanglement and related quantum phenomena.

To my extent of knowledge, most of Einstein's critical work regarding statistical thermodynamics stems from the years 1902-1904, I am not aware of his philosophical position in later years after the works of Plancherel and Rosenthal in 1913 prving that the ergodic hypothesis requires a non-deterministic system for working. If you look at his 1924 paper "Quantum theory of the ideal gas", he is using Boltzmann's approach in a seemingly comfortable manner.

We finally arrive at the phenomena of entanglement.

The entanglement between space and time is a universal law of physics.

Before the Big Bang, there was only a unitary 4D x-t vacuum containing space, time, energy density and entanglement.

The four physical quantities above led spontaneously and inevitably to what is called the Big Bang.

Schrödinger's error is to formulate his QM wave equation and deduce entanglement when the opposite is more true.

Entanglement had deceived A. Einstein and E. Schrodinger as well.

I just checked on WoS with the search terms

space time relativistic entanglement

The oldest reference dates back to 1997, so decades after Einstein and Schrödinger died. You are clearly confusing concepts (plus you haven't acknowledged the obvious confusion in your original question), the pure effect of space and time being variables in a shared Minkowski space isn't entanglement, that's just not what this word means.

Oh, and when you say "before the Big Bang": there is no data that tells us anything factual about anything closer to it than a Planck time (5.5x10-44s).

The statistical theory of Cairo techniques and its B-matrix chains are nothing more than four elements, an appropriate control volume properly entangled on top of total energy conservation, all invented in an elegant statistical form.

It was first published in 2020 are still in their infancy but are capable of challenging and defeating all other theories of classical and quantum physics as well as mathematics in a dazzling manner [1,2] .

This theory is the only theory in the complete unitary 4D space x,y,z,t and this is why it is impossible to relate it to a rule, or to a theorem belonging to the classical 3D + t space (space R^4) which is incomplete, or even false.

The only difficulty or flaw is that it requires a certain level of concentration, great power of imagination and a giant memory, so the person below this level never manages to understand the theory or its consequences.

In the following, we present an example of how Cairo techniques are able to challenge and defeat Einstein's special relativity in a dazzling way [1,2] .

The solution of the heat diffusion equation in 4D unit space via matrix chain technique B predicts that the speed of the entanglement signal which is the speed of light in vacuum C as,

Cemw=T1/ 2 .log 2 * L^2/ thermal diffusivity α. . . . (1)

Theoretical equation 1 contains 3 unknowns Cemw, T1/2 and α. If we experimentally measure two of them, for example α (from thermal tables) and T1/2 which is half the time of a free cooling curve and substitute them into equation 1, it will be equivalent to measuring C in special relativity.

NOW,α (Al) = 1.18 E-5 MK units

α (Iron) = 2.5 E-5 MKS units

And, T1/2 for an aluminum cube of side 10 cm = 45 sec while T1/2 for an iron cube of side 10 cm = 100 sec (As measured by the Author).

Substituting the above values ​​for α and T1/2 into equation 1, we arrive at a value of Cemw close to ,Clight = 2.9 E3 in both cases.

Note that, classical R^4 mathematics is useless for finding an expression of Einstein's special relativity in a control volume or elsewhere.

1-A numerical statistical solution to the partial differential equations of Laplace and Poisson, I.M. Abbas, IJISRT journal, Volume 5, Number 11, November, 2020.

2-Theory and practice of control volumes -Detailed Analysis, Jan 2025.

I really don't understand your communication approach. You keep posting questions with "paradoxes" whose resolution is mostly trivial within the established physics (after all, I'm a chemist and have no trouble with most of them) and when somebody posts this resolution, you respond by a chaotic reference to your matrix chains which is mostly unrelated to your original question. How can you possibly hope to be recognized as a valid contributor with this incoherent communication?

In the following, we present another striking example of how the Cairo techniques explain the theory of sound waves in audio rooms to show that it is in fact the unified energy field theory, sought after for a long time![1].

Before continuing with the response, I ask my respectable readers and contributors to allow the following small comment:

The theory of Cairo techniques and its B-matrix statistical chains is a bit long and has a fundamental flaw in that it requires a high level of mathematics and physics in addition to intelligence and activity.

This means that only the people listed in the first section of Figure 1 Ref [2] can understand and follow the path and results of this theory.

Other people like chemists, geologists, architects, etc. I recommend them to stop reading this type of Q&A because it's not for you.

The theory of sound waves and reverberation time TR inside an audio room was discovered experimentally by W. Sabine 100 years ago and has still never been touched.

The solution of the sound energy diffusion equation in 4D unit space via the statistical technique of matrix chains B predicts that the same equation 1 is valid for the speed of the sound entanglement signal which is the speed of l sound wave.

In the air of the NPT, we have,

C sound=T1/ 2 .log 2 * L^2/ thermal diffusivity α. . . . (1*)

Theoretical equation 1 contains 3 unknown parameters,

C sound, T1/2 and α. If we experimentally measure two, for example α and T1/2, which is half the time of a free reverb curve, and substitute them into equation 1*, this will be equivalent to measuring C sound.

Now,

α (sound room) = 4 V. C sound / A Sav m^2/s

And, experimental values ​​T1/2 in empty cubic audio rooms is given by Sabines formula,

T1/2= 53.46 V / C A Sav,. . second. . . (2*)

So,

comparing 1* and 2*, we get,

V sound= 53.46 * 2 Pi= 335.73 [3]

which is the speed of sound in air at NTP.

Note that classical R^4 mathematics is useless for finding an expression for reverberation time TR or sound speed in the control volume of an audio room.

1-Theory and practice of volume control, January 2025.

2-A three-dimensional classification of humans, March 2024.

3- THEORY AND DESIGN OF AUDIO ROOMS-REFORMULATION OF SABINE FOROULA, October 2021

So, instead of addressing the apparent logical flaws in your previous posts, you simply add another topic and declare that whoever points out apparent flaws is not intellectually fit?

Maybe learning coherent argumentation would be a better solution. But since you don't want to hear that, goodbye.

Can the chains of matrix B be used for the derivation of statistical laws?

The contributions of modern probability theory and statistics arising from B-matrix strings have exceptional applications in theoretical mathematics, physics, and statistics.

(A)The Gaussian distribution eq 1 below is a discrete or continuous probability distribution, sometimes called an anomalous distribution, and is widely used to model continuous/discrete random variables. Additionally, the Gaussian distribution is the most important type of random variable, sometimes called the normal distribution f(x) of the random variable. x, parameterized by a mean (μ) and a variance (σ^2). The Gaussian distribution is not easy to derive mathematically in R^4 space but it can be obtained in 4D unit x-t space [1] in a simple way via B-matrix statistical techniques

f(x)dx = 1/ σ √2 π Exp -1/2( [x - μ ]/ σ)2. dx. . . . (1)

According to normal conventions.

We expect the distribution of the energy density field resulting from the B transition statistical matrix chains to be exactly the same as that of the Gaussian distribution Eq 1.

We also assume that it can simply be derived numerically using modern B-matrix statistics.

mechanics on the same path as statistical numerical integration.

It is worth mentioning that the current mathematical definition of the Gaussian distribution is one of the most vague and misleading definitions in the world of useless R^4 mathematics. “A discrete Gaussian distribution is a distribution over a fixed network where each point on the network is sampled. with a probability proportional to its probability mass according to the standard Gaussian distribution (in n dimensions).

It is clear that the definition above is vague, misleading and should be replaced by [1]:

A discrete Gaussian distribution is best redefined as a steady-state distribution for the temporal evolution of the interacting elements of any closed system, regardless of its initial conditions.

However, the Gaussian distribution can be expressed as follows: f(x) = C1. Exp (-x^2/σ^2) . . . .(2)

In fact, the Gaussian or normal distribution equation1,2 is nothing more than the statistics included in the control volume entanglement.

We expect the stationary distribution of the energy density field resulting from the B transition statistical matrix chains to be exactly the same as that of the Gaussian distribution Eq 1.2.

(B) The QM distribution called Plancks law for black body (BB) radiation can also be obtained from

We also assume that it can simply be derived numerically using modern B-matrix mechanics (following the same route as numerical statistical integration).

For example, in the 1D statistical integration formula: The statistical integration formula for 7 nodes is obtained from the formula,

I = 6h/77 (6.Y1 +11.Y2 + 14.Y3+15.Y4 +14.Y5 +11.Y6 + 6.Y7). . ..(3)

And the statistical integration formula for 11 free nodes gives [1]:

I=10 h/ 145*[6.191+ 10.715 +13.862 +15.92117.056+17.4344025+ . . . . . . (4)

To be completed by the property of symmetry.

By performing a numerical curve fit to the numerical values ​​of the arguments or parameters of the dependent variable Y in equations 1,2, you obtain values ​​similar to those obtained from the Gaussian curve equations 3,4.

The numerical result obtained aimed at proving the Gaussian distribution gives:

C*1/ σ^2 = 0.07. for 7 free nodes,

And,

C*1/σ^2 =0.047, and 11 free nodes respectively.

It is clear that the statistical equations 1,2 of the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution is only the stationary state of the statistical integration formulas of the Cairo techniques, which leads to the so-called Gaussian distribution.

(B)The QM Planck black body (BB) radiation curve statistics can also be obtained from the B matrix chains as follows:

To be continued.

1-Theory and practice of control volumes -Detailed analysis, January 2025.

The question arises:

Did E. Schrödinger deeply understand quantum mechanics?

I believe that E. Schrödinger understood quantum mechanics deeply.

Only, he did not have the power to impose his own ideas against the giants N. Bohr, Heisenberg, Einstein, etc.

Check out his brilliant quotes:

i-Entanglement is not one but rather the characteristic feature of the quantum mechanical.

ii-He wrote about the probabilistic interpretation of quantum mechanics saying:

"I don't like it and I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it."

Today, after 100 years, we are more reliable about what is true and what is false:

1- The three giants Einstein, Bohr, Schrödinger were all wrong in confining entanglement to quantum physics phenomena when it applies to classical physics in the same way as in QM (Sound waves in audio rooms for example).

2-Most of the great scientists of the time and the iron guards who followed believe that entanglement transfers instantly (spooky action at a distance) while the statistical theory of Cairo techniques predicts that the entanglement signal has a maximum speed equal to the speed of light C.

3-Quantum entanglement comes before Schrödinger PDE and not after.

4-Sentimentally I feel discomfort every time I hear or read the sentence:

Separation of variables

in time-dependent PDE.

To me this looks like separating the head from the body of a living subject (entanglement).

Artificial Intelligence AI can be simply defined as solving problems through automated algorithms.

In this article, we explain the basic prerequisite skills of a future AI programmer and how he can improve his abilities in the field of artificial intelligence programming.

Finally, we use AI to test the correctness of the well-known theories of relativity and quantum mechanics introduced by the giants A. Einstein and E. Schrödinger more than a century ago.

The numerical results are stunning because they show that the well-established theories of relativity and quantum mechanics are only partially true and contain inherent flaws.

It is worth mentioning that many of our respectable contributors and readers frequently ask how do you judge and correct the scientific work of the giants A. Einstein and E. Schrödinger?

Does this mean you are smarter than both of them?

The answer is that we use AI.

It is the artificial intelligence of the Cairo techniques and its B-matrix algorithms that is smarter than A. Einstein and E. Schrödinger and not the author himself.

A striking example of Einstein's defeat by artificial intelligence is chess.

Einstein played chess regularly (because he believed it could improve human intelligence), especially with his close friend E. Lasker.

E. Lasker was a professor of mathematics and world chess champion at the time.

The debate between the two giants went as follows [1]:

Einstein: I suppose chess is a fake game because the white player has the first move and should therefore have a forced win!?

E. Lasker: But no. The first move advantage for the white player is counterbalanced by the advantage of greater information for the black player.

Therefore, white's advantage decreases as the number of moves increases.

Normally, before the 20th move, both sides are exactly equal for any arbitrary opening.

Einstein worked hard on this problem but to no avail.

He eventually announced that the complexities of chess had defeated the human brain.

It was only at the beginning of the 21st century that the world got a precise answer to this problem.

Artificial intelligence scientists introduced two supercomputers A and B equipped with cutting-edge AI algorithms.

When supercomputers A and B played chess against each other, all games ended in a draw for any type of opening!

1-

Did Einstein regularly play chess?, Quora Q/A.

there is a German famous football player he once gave inside in his philosophy:

Fußball ist wie Schach, nur ohne Würfel.

I thought to transform it to physics and using Einsteins Opinion

Physics is like chess only without using dice.

Einstein opposed the development of C. Boltzman's famous entropy formula, s=kB lnW, because he believed it was purely statistical and did not contain force dynamics.

Try this point of view first:

Preprint Conclusions from the Principles of Thermodynamics

application here

Preprint Einstein's Heritage possible only with GR