Dear Andrew, 

The url of patent is here for your question readers:

https://www.google.ch/patents/US20140270802

I think it is very interesting and if it really works (don't forget: a patent claims, doesn't prove), then, probably, simply special relativity is dead.

No more comments for the moment.

Thanks Remi for an interesting overview.

The clarity of patents is always a challenge but the very idea of instantaneous synchronisation at a distance and whether or not it differs from Einstein synchronisation remains an open question.

I have good reasons to say that absolute synchronisation that corresponds to absolute simultaneity is a valid concept and it differs from Einstein's, but I see no proof whether entangled photons prefer the absolute or Einstein's synchrony.

The fact that the synchronisation is instantaneous e.g. faster than by direct light signal does not by itself exclude possibility that it is equivalent to Einstein's synchronisation.  It seems intuitively obvious slow clock transport synchrony would be different to Einstein's, but the calculations of course prove against intuition.

The direct expermental proof is theoretically possible when you synchronise two adjacent clocks by different methods with the remote master clock, and use those to determine the speed of light in the round trip experiment. But this method could be fairly expensive to realise.

Dear Valentin

The slow clock claim dates back to early 20th century when Eddington has published his book[1]

This is on page 15-16 and the book is freely available at:

https://archive.org/details/mathematicaltheo00eddiuoft

You can have a look and check if there is anything wrong with his proof.

What I will do is I will check the slow clock claim using LT in my own way to see if I converge with Eddington. If I do, this case is over. If I do not converge, it will be really interesting.

[1] Eddington, A., 1924. The Mathematical Theory of Relativity, 2nd edition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Valentin,

There is more than one one way to use Lorentz transformation. You can use explicit transformation equation and substituting variables by other variables and loose a lot of useful insight into relativity. You can use the matrix form and see in n full detail. MY way is the second way. Of course both ways should ultimately give the same results if done properly.

There is more than one way to prove the slow clock transport. If you think deriving LT from slow transport is the only way this is wrong unless indeed as you say slow clock synchrony is not equal to Einstein's synchrony. 

They are two separate problems to solve with the STR. One whether the mathematical model is consistent and claims made against it consistent.  The other if a physical clock that moves from rest changes relative size as compared in rest frame and its rate changes accordingly. You cannot prove within the STR that it is not physical. You need to know if the moving system changes dimension and clock rate. If  this does not hapen the STR is not worth the paper it has been writen on. If it does you can accept the STR but not the naive interpretation of real time.

At this stage I found I have to agree with Eddington according to my calculation.

I think I may write a little paper about it since this issue keeps on reocurring.

I suggest you show us what transformations can be derived from slow clock transport if not LT so we could compare the results from the two viewpoints.

Do you agree that the light Eddington is talking about is emitted as a sphere such that Fermat's principle holds ?

Presumably we all do.

Hence  c²t²= dx²+dy²+dz² is always true.

Hence ds²=  dx²+dy²+dz²-c²t² is always true, because ds²=0 is always true.

On page 14 (eq 4.6) of https://archive.org/details/mathematicaltheo00eddiuoft

the ds² of Minkowski metric is introduced.

On page 15 the integral over ds (between two clocks) is calculated. Eddington assumed (!) that the difference of the clock-readings is direct proportional to the integral over ds.

The integral over any constant is impossible to draw.

The integral over zero is ....

"Is [some] simultaneous event the same way simultaneous as when using Einstein synchronisation of clocks?"

The Einstein clock sync method (for readers on the fly)

Imagine that a fast and noisy train is crossing behind your place regularly. Each time the train appears you will reset your clock - whether the train has some delay or not.

The Einstein method follows a master slave idea where the slave won't have a chance to get knowledge of the true time. Therefore he won't be able to check the accuracy of the master.

Please find attached a geogebra worksheet to prove the Einstein method interactively.

http://ggbm.at/BmGTDGAE

Valentin,

Since you imply I have a dementia I will comment on claims you make in order

"That is a false relativistic myth."

Myths are false by definition so it implies it is true. But I kno it is not what you meant.

If Einstein had used a clock T slowly (inertially) transported between clocks A and B as a synchronization method then his *derivation* of Lorentz transformations would have failed.

True because he would derive Galilean transformation and light speed would not be constant in inertial system ever. He deliberately proposed clock synchronisation method that would give the light speed appearance of being equal in two directions. Coincidently this brings Maxwell equation to the same form in every inertial system. This can only happen if time dilates and length contracts. You simple assume it does not happen so in such case no point talking about Einstein.

Whether length changes and clock have different rates relative to clocks at rest can only be proven experimentally. I am not competent to judge hence I analyse STR consistency within self and with the common sense and inherent logic of physical phenomena..

"So, any "calculations" using the Lorentz Transformations for such a method are obviously circular reasoning."

The only circularity is so far that time is defined with simulktaneity and simultaneity defined with time. Einstein however breaks the circularity by nominating a physical scenario in which the events are defined as simultaneous-a covention which STR would be if it did not require clock to change rates and length changing as well

STR moder is perfectly valid IF contraction and dilation really happen.

"Prove me first that you can derive LT using an inertial synchronization method, and then, *if* that derivation is successful, feel free to use the newly obtained LT for any mechanics purposes you wish."

Impossible with Galilean assumption that clock is not affected by motion

Valentin,

That is a relativistic claim, as it is using a relativistic 4-dimensional space (aka spacetime) calculation, compatible and equivalent to the relativistic use of Lorentz Transformation.Hence, that is circular logic, and so it's not contradicting me even a bit.

I am discussing Einstein's relativity not Galilean relativity. Many people claimed slow clock transport allows nearly absolute synchronisation and this  can be used to prove light anisotropy. I have proven the same what Eddington did but in a different way. There is no circularity. Intuitive claim has been proven wrong assuming STR is valid.

Again: if anyone claims that slow transport of clocks is equivalent to light signals as synchronization method, first they have to *derive* the Lorentz Transformation using the slow transport of clocks only.

It has been done the other way round I see no value in a pointless excercise.

"There is no such thing as "I'm gonna use LT in my own way"."

Yes there is.as explained before

So if you want to back up such claim, first you have to derive LT *exclusively* by using slow transport of clocks. So again, any use of c , or any use of electrodynamics or SRT, is obviously circular logic.

"Impossible because you assume clocks not affected by motion as explained before and there is no circularity"

Valentin,

"I wrote 3 times so you can understand, and you still did not."

I must be demented then

Please, understand the difference between derivation of Lorentz transformation, and use of Lorentz transformation.You cannot use LT if you had not derived it *before* using it!

Someone derived it  before me and I am testing it. I am satisfied with the derivation in 1905 publication based on adopted assumptions, not so much in the later popular book "Relativity: The Special and General Theory (1920) Appendix 1"

"You cannot derive LT by light signals, and then use it to calculate synchronization by slow clock transport! Can't you see the circular logic?"

There is no circularity, Clock's equation of motion in one inertial frame can be transformed to any other inertial frame then you can compare is indication relative to coinciding clocks in other inertial frames. Equivalence of slow clock transport in STR to einstein synchronisation is not intuitively obvious so it must be proven as many did so far.

Gregor,

Einstein synchronisation method is to synchronise distant clocks within the same inertial system. Synchronisation of moving clocks of another inertial system is another matter

Both systems independently should synchronise their remote clocks to the master clock in the origin after synchronising their master clocks during flyover.

Andrew,

there are basic principles (of thinking, of logic) that prohibit to follow Einstein's ideas of Special Relativity:

Anybody may assume what he wants but we are free to detect the truth. Somebody stated the following (in 1905):

"We assume that this definition of synchronism is free from contradictions, and possible for any number of points; and that the following relations are universally valid."

The proposition above is an assumption.

I recommend to take a look at and to try the worksheet (http://ggbm.at/BmGTDGAE) mentioned above because this may show that

• staying in the same inertial system (and at a const distance)

does not have some

• implication on the motion the "moving clocks".

Finally:

"If you don't know the number of the house to that you have to deliver some pizza, it will be nothing to establish by definition that the house in the middle of the street should be that one."

http://dierck-e-liebscher.de/movies/srt-einsteinzug.avi

Dear Andrew,

about the sync with entanglement there was a very interesting paper on arxiv

http://arxiv.org/abs/1310.6045

this is the best maybe

http://arxiv.org/abs/1501.00996

It is only a matter of time, simutaneity will help to renovate  undecent theories.

Christian,

of course I can draw valid deductions from these two statements:

• (A) You cannot gain insights by definitions.
• (B) Assumptions do not carry truth.

Please let me strictly reject your second proposition (not only by formal means):

A tautology is a valid proposition which is anyway true (provided that any reader does accept the underlying principles of logic). A contradiction is a valid proposition which is anyway false (provided that any reader does accept the underlying principles of logic).

A is accepted to be a tautology. This is clear because definitions otherwise would allow us to get indefinite insights and knowledge.

B is named an ‘empty phrase’ which is –by logical view- equivalent to the emptiness of truth which is a synonym to contradiction. My analysis of your wording gives that B is not well accepted as tautology.

B is a tautology too. In 1905 A. Einstein explicitly gave his idea to ‘define the time’ the label ‘assumption’ but today nearly all Einstein believers obviously do read his assumption as some well founded, justified law of nature. But by formal principles his definition of time (which is an analytical sentence) cannot be true (or false) at all.

Now, what we may draw from these two tautologies is the following:

If Mr. Einstein uses some special definition of time this never could have had some impact on the set of deducible sentences of his theorem. The definition of time cannot enable us to deduce (by monotonic reasoning) anything in addition (which we don’t know or don’t have before using that definition). (Nicht-Kreativität, Eliminierbarkeit, Nominals only): The definiendum (lhs) always may be eliminated from the language (substituted by the definiens (rhs)).

Hence: The disclosure effect (“wow effect”, “ground-breaking”) that was attributed to SR cannot be justified by the ‘invention’ of this poor definition: 2 U/dt=V. The disclosure effect is merely a consequence of some confusion

of the analytical sentence V=2U/dt,

which states that the speed of light is to be defined on the full round trip, i.e. both directions

with the synthetical (empirical) sentence t_B=dt/2,

which states that the clock at B is to be set to (or read as) the half of the round trip time. (Note: t_B=dt/2 cannot be taken as that by theory dt/2 is the true value because there was given no mean before to sync the clocks in A and B!)

One could try to perceive Einstein’s idea as an early idea of setting the clock according to human needs (like daylight saving): “Just set the clock at B the way it matches the half of the round trip!”

The disclosure effect of Einstein’s idea in short:  »Get rid of the full problem by setting the time to some value that the definition formula announces.«

But this is not allowed to be judged as (scientific) solution to any problem because of the following:

If you allow Mr. Einstein to use his own definition of time (and you are setting your clock according to his definition) you have to allow your daughter and your friends and me to use individual definitions too. Note that You cannot forbid to define. What then would happen is about to become reality today even more: Anybody does what he likes to do and misconceptions are all around.

Finally: As a follower of Mr. Einstein You have to wear as many clocks as friends you have, even if they sit with you in the same inertial frame of reference, e.g. at the pool bar.

Hundred and one years on and debates do not subside on special relativity. While in fact it is all very simple.

First, The existence of absolute frame is not in contradiction with Lorentz Transformation (LT).

LT allow to describe kinematics without knowing what that frame is in any inertial system.

Whether LT is correct description depends on whether the objects really shrink when moved from the absolute rest and whether the processes we use as time reference relatively slow down.

All kinematics based on remote measurements of speed and distance using round trip experiments from multiple inertial system will provide consistent results which can be transformed from one frame to another using LT even if you assume existence of the absolute frame.

But LT based kinematics view is a consistent but distorted view of reality.

I compare it to using distorted lenses. What you see is not reflecting exact relation between objects but generally there is one to one mapping - a transformation that can fix it.

Einstein relative simultaneity is only effect of particular synchronisation of clocks that can easily be done. As we know one can synchronise clocks any way one wants and gen an interesting (distorted) picture of reality. I include a picture that illustrates what happens to the length of a non relativistic train as it travels, decelerates stops on the station and accelerates again  when you shift the clock indication  of the front and the end of the train by an offset and use respective equations of motion to determine that length. That would happen also if you have used a really slow signal from the two distant points.

The bad things is that taking relative simultaneity for real created all that nonsense that goes on for 101 years now.

I hope quantum entanglement simultaneity is real but I have not seen the proof yet.

I am currently working on the definition and kinematic demonstration of absolute simultaneity and I believe I am very close now. My initial draft publications were only a warm-up and hopefully I will be able to clarify those things much better in the near future.

Differently of other points of view here, I prefer to remain inside STR. So no gravitation, no gravitational waves, and no accelerated loads enter the scene.

Synchronisation cannot be seriously done in a system in which there is no simultaneity. The only one solution is to associate from outside a time variable to whole inertial systems, and to proceed like in the formal (axiomatic) proof of the Lorentz Transformation. Synchronization by entanglement (if the two entangled particles keep a constant distance between them and as a binary move on a line with constant speed) seems to be the same thing as the synchronization from outside. If the particles have a relative movement and are entangled, we surely get contradictions. My guess would be that relatively moving particles cannot be entangled, or that our knowlege about this kind of entanglement is still incipient, or partly false.

Please read the paper, may be helpful for you.

A new approach to the correction of

Galilean transformation.

researchgate.net/profile/Sheng_Liu37

Valentin,

"Nope, it's not simple. It's a very complex subject."

Complexity is a bit relative term. If you can call elementary linear algebra using matrices and linear transformations plus high school classic kinematics simple. This is really very simple.

The complexity is in choosing the right words and presentation to carry across some elementary truths. 

" ...relativists, they're gonna hate you"

Thats even worse. People like you will as well. They will make a strong opposition when I say that Dingle was not quite right nor his opponents. If he was right he would understand why two illusions contradict the reality. They do contradict but they are also real like fata morgana when you synchronise clocks not for simultaneity but to force the speed of light showing up like equal in two directions.

Valentin,

"Nope, round trip experiments show nothing regarding the absolute frame."

I did not say that. They do not. 

If you had three inertial systems moved from the absolute rest:

If two inertial system establish their own relative speeds by two consecutive round trip experiments each, and do the same measurement wrt the third system seen to them AND :( time dilation and length contraction real for a body moved from rest by the gamma factor relative to the common rest) then:

The relative experimental velocities of the third system are related by LT not by GT.

The reason is that both assume equal speed of light in both direction in their calculations.

Rubbish in Rubbish out, but if you do it to many objects with different velocities you have consistent equations of motion and you can predict which can collide which not.

Same with distorted lenses. For example:

While two far away objects starting simultaneously on collision straight line paths collide as seen with the naked eye from the point in between:

The guy with distorted lenses far away, sees the curved trajectories and the collision and also the colliding bodies do not stat simultneously. If he new EOMs somehow he could predict this collision.

The LT lenses are not quite like that and straight lines do not curve  but the principle is similar.

Valentin,

"you're wasting time and brain energy trying to put "absolute simultaneity" and "relative simultaneity" together. They are totally mutually exclusive,"

I am not wasting time because time does not exist :)

relative and absolute simutaneity are not quite exclusive but they are two different things like apple does not contradict an orange.

if t(Ei) is time of event Ei and simultaneity relation is:

t(Ei) = t(Ej), then

relative simultanity relations are:

t(Ei) = t(Ej)+Δt or

t(Ei) - Δt= t(Ej)

But both sides think it is

t(Ei) = t(Ej) and make their calculations based on this

You have not seen my train example picture to see what comes out of such assumptions.

Valentin,

The best way to settle your dispute is to show the Danci transformations (DC) that fix all problems + underlying assumptions used to derive them. It should not take more than one-two pages of a standard text.

Dear Christian,

"In my understanding relativity does not claim that objects shrink if they are accelerated, but that an observer at rest measures a reduced length of high velocity objects, as if the object would shrink"

That is correct that the object itself cannot detect it has shrunk. After all his meter stick is still the meter stick and it has 100 one centimeter tick marks irrespective of the velocity. It is however important to see if this object finds that the world has somehow become much larger. If you have moved from rest and remember position of all visible objects, does it mean the whole world has moved and shrunk?

This is a bit more complex than that.

In my opinion the problem is in the error of widespread use of the naive concept of reciprocity. It is possible to defeat. I think I will post a little paper on it in the near future.

Dear Mihai

The discussion as usual departed from the main subject but it is understandable because the subject of simultaneity plays role in it.

Thank you for aligning the thread back to entanglement.

" I prefer to remain inside STR. So no gravitation, no gravitational waves, and no accelerated loads enter the scene."

That is my preference too. Although this is an idealised view, it gives necessary basis to more complex situation. And the basis seems to have been abandoned in 1916.

"Synchronisation cannot be seriously done in a system in which there is no simultaneity"

I do not think it is right. It is not simultaneity, it is relative clocks instability.

I think we will find in due time that there is only one type of simultaneity that matters and it is common irrespective  of the motion of a system. I am cautiously optimistic it will happen sooner rather than later.

"The only one solution is to associate from outside a time variable to whole inertial systems,"

I agree. I use this approach for quite some time and it gives a great insight into the subject matter. That should help someone with intimate knowledge of entanglement to prove whether it is absolute or Einstein-simultaneous - I think.

The big question begs for answer:

Is the simultaneous change of state of entangled particles simultaneous in all reference frames?

I have a reason to believe it is.

You say:

"relatively moving particles cannot be entangled,"

The problem is that particles  are practically never at rest with each other unless ejected with the same speed and direction.

It is easy with photons in the same laser beam.

Andrew, suppose that they are shot with the same speed and direction, but that they have load or mass. Then there will be some interaction between them, and it is impossible to not have a relative move. So, as you also say, photons shut in the same laser beam - accepting that they really have no mass, but also this is discussable.

But you see my point: STR would produce relative time dilations, and this does not look to well work together with entanglement... Soon the state of entanglement will be destroyed. Another question is if we can produce pairs of entangled particles in every two given points of the space - such that this work as a synchronisation method.

Dear Mihai

The point of absolute simultaneity is that this kind of relation is independent of motion.

It is one and only like God in some monotheistic religions. In Relativity it is like some other monotheistic religions, it is one but for multiple divine persons where every person is divine.

Relative simultaneity is not real but the effect of non simultaneous clock synchronisation. 

It is better to eliminate it from logical reasoning. When necessary note clock anomalies. This is much bettr view.

Mihai,

Time dilatation and motion do not destroy simultaneity.

Imagine two adjacent simultaneous  clocks. You make one running much slower.

Are the clock states non simultaneous in any way?

Do they jump into each other past or future? 

To Christian:

"To which paper of Einstein does your equation "t_B=dt/2" refer? Can you give a reference?"

I don’t like this kind of kidding. Please find the references in the attached copies.

“If you want to criticize his model, then you have to demonstrate that the predictions are wrong.”

“Whether LT is correct description depends on whether predicted measurement results are confirmed.”

Please take a look on the Chinese Room Argument (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chinese-room/) which tells us that the positive wrong cases exist, for example we cannot measure precisely enough to detect the errors:

“The narrow conclusion of the argument is that […] (something) may make it appear to be […] but does not produce real understanding. Hence the “Turing Test” is inadequate.“

Christian,

this is a reference which is interesting and important too:

A.Einstein:. Relativity: The Special and General Theory.  1920.

VIII.  On the Idea of Time in Physics

“I maintain my previous definition nevertheless, because in reality it assumes absolutely nothing about light. There is only one demand to be made of the definition of simultaneity, namely, that in every real case it must supply us with an empirical decision as to whether or not the conception that has to be defined is fulfilled. That my definition satisfies this demand is indisputable. That light requires the same time to traverse the path A —> M as for the path B —> M is in reality neither a supposition nor a hypothesis about the physical nature of light, but a stipulation which I can make of my own freewill in order to arrive at a definition of simultaneity.”

Questions:

Just to avoid misconceptions:

If simultaneity is something to be defined we may have an appointment tommorow in order to watch the mercury transit the other day!

Gregor

Then what does the word simultaneity means exactly?

“…Relativity does not allow for a unique and absolute (motion independent) concept of time. Each clock shows just its own proper time…”

- - in the reality – and indeed, in contrast to “Relativity”, the concept of time (of both “times” that act in Matter) is, of course, absolute – that is, first of all, simply a possibility for something to change/ be changed,

which is realized in Matter as the component [the direction and the axis in the absolute Matter’s [5]4D empty container] of Matter’s [5]4D absolute Euclidian spacetime. At that all/every material objects that have “rest masses” move in the time, clocks differ from other objects only in that they show their – principally relative – absolute time coordinates along the “coordinate time” axis in Matter’s 4D "sub-spacetime".

At that, however, since till now the absolute speed of at least one clock on Earth or not too far from Earth – and, correspondingly the clock’s real temporal coordinate changing – isn’t measured (though that is rather simple and cheap measurement), really clocks now show for “observers” indeed some subjective “times” that are dependent on methods of clocks’ synchronizations.

And till the “observers” don’t understand – what the notion “time” means, they always will not understand what concrete clocks show, what means a concrete synchronization method, what is “simultaneity”, etc., etc., etc…

Cheers

• Simultaneity is identity of time.
• Identity is a necessary precondition of reference.

 A note on relativity

The relativistic ideas suffer from deep lack of substance (reference and standards).

If body A would get different values for

• mass,
• length, width, height, volume,
• temperature,
• age

depending on the (unknown relative to the unmodified speed of light) observational speed of some other object B this would cause some logical problems (and of conception).

Following the relativistic approach A-properties are not properties of A any longer but of (A x B) due to B is observing what he is actually causing. What B may observe (or act while observing) is as unknown and as doubtable as A’s activity. If relativists have to give all the attributes to the couple (which is practice, e.g. the center of mass, the mM-factor) how do they get their primary values, e.g. the length of (AxB) refers to length of A?

It is easy to see that A can observe B only and B can observe A only. If A is telling B “You are so beautiful” B has to believe it because there is no alternative to ask. This is the pattern of Einstein’s synchronization technique.

To give it clear: Relativists following this idea are not allowed to talk about

• mass,
• length, width, height, volume,
• temperature,
• age

of single bodies as they have –according to their program- to name the referee explicitly. They have to join both objects to one “object of investigation” and give this object all the properties. Consequently, the procedures and rules to collect the necessary data (of AxB) are unprovable.

In general and in science we are not allowed to follow ideologies that come without any proof (despite we tend to it within our private life).

Finally, some hint on where to observe live implementations of such relativistic ideas:

At schools and universities the ratings of teachers, profs and students is prevailing. The students give their teachers the best grades, the teachers give top grades to their students and to their colleagues as well. As long as there is no common reference what else may be expected?

Gregor 

"Simultaneity is identity of time"

Nice and compact definition. All other lines is just ideology.

Don't get too emotional. This never helps.

The first two words tell what is defined.

The third says it is a binary relation of something.

That something is time which you have to define.

What it is exactly and where it is.

If time is one instance of one thing it is identical to itself

Which is obvious but then time can be anything.

That is not the identity we are after because

We cannot distinguish time from timber.

Valentin, Gregor

We are deviating from the main subject however since no new input is coming it is good to practice scientific debate than do nothing.

≝

≝ ???

already well known term you do not need to define.

Identity is a binary relation that is a binary function, one whose value is always a truth-value

The properties of identity are:

1 "≡"(A,A)=TRUE (reflecive)

2 ”≡"(A,B) =TRUE   ”(B,A) =TRUE (symmetric)

”≡"(A,B) =TRUE and   ”≡"(B,C) =TRUE => ”≡"(A,C)=TRUE (transitive)

4 If A is identical to B, then: every property that A has, B also has to have, and vice versa.

The statement:

“Identity is a necessary precondition of reference” is a kind of a proposition and unrelated to the definition of simultaneity above, where:

 is a condition that must always be true just prior to reference where:

is the relation by which other things are indicated or positioned, against which other things are measured or compared

The statement (proposition) says that ( a generic binary relation) of undisclosed two arguments is a necessary to some undisclosed relation. It may or may not be true.

Don't you think there are couple of thing missing there?

When I said “If time is one instance of one thing it is identical to itself” I mean the reflective property of the identity relation, because time was given as a single object and identity generally needs two. But Time"≡"Time is valid but it is not unique (useless) property because timber has it also.

Valentin,

One thing I agree straight away. I am allergic to calling event coordinates an event. Such apparently innocent simplification takes all the physical context from considerations. Although for any practical purpose every event is unique in nature so is every 3 coordinates plus time in an established coordinate system. So in a sense every combination (t,x,y,z) may uniquely identify an event disregarding possibility of multiple events at the same time and at exactly the same location which is barely possible. You can see separation of connected bodies as one or two events such as one goes left with the other going right as it happens after a collision.

When it comes to allegations in the previous post, I will think a bit to answer.

Only a few considerations:

The Einstein synchronization is well-defined as an empirical procedure while the synchronization by entanglement seems to be only a theoretical hypothesis possibly impracticable even in principle. Nevertheless, to be commensurable with the former, on can think of it as accomplished by 'action at a distance" transferring the necessary information instantly but by means of a physical carrier or directly as pure information, say, quantum.

The concept of entanglement, of course, presupposes quantum mechanics, and it has troubles with the quantity of time (Pauli) correlating to energy conservation or its violation (Bohr et al). Roughly speaking, it is formulated in terms of the reciprocal quantity, frequency, so if the time difference is zero, the frequency difference is infinite. So the term 'instantaneous synchronization' involves necessarily an infinite subspace of the separable complex Hilbert space. This implies a well-ordered quantity similar to that of time, which cannot be the time for the above. The two dimensional time is not a way out for the two times are necessarily complementary to each other.

The only consistent way to be reconciled and then equated both kinds of synchronization to each other if one considers entanglement synchronization as the nonstandard (in the sense of Robinson's nonstandard analysis) equivalent of Einstein's one. Then the above two times are equivalent, too, as a continuous (smooth) quantity and its non-standard twin. The latter is naturally to be interpreted as the quantity of frequency for each "axis" of the separable complex Hilbert space utilized in quantum mechanics.

 Thank you Vasil for your response and presenting your point of view.

I am in no position to judge, but I see the US patent:US 20140270802:"Quantum synchronization for classical distributed systems" which claims a practical method.

And the concept itself of instantaneous action at a distance which mean two correlated events propagated with no delay seems contradicting relativity.

But being the devil's advocate: there is no problem imagining a process of simultaneous events arising by other than point to point transport but if they are simultaneous in terms of Einstein synchronised clocks they will be not simultaneous in other inertial system, however given the separation is not perpendicular to the relative velocity vectors.

But photons never stop in any inertial system so what would make two simultaneous photon states non-simultaneous when for example taking into consideration one unique transition after which the source photon is destroyed? This defies common logic. My point of view is that there is only one simultaneity possible for all inertial systems and the apparent simultaneity is the result of clock synchronisation to meet the demand to fix the speed of light the same in both directions.

 When you shift one clock by an hour this is the clock that has changed - not the world moved to the past or to the future.

Thanks again for your detailed description.

Christian,

"there is neither a logical nor a physical requirement that the absolute values of these coordinates should be shared by all other RF"

I meant unique event coordinates in one coordinate system implies  unique event coordinates in any other because coordinates can be established to a unique the same physical object against any possible origin and if any absolute reference exists then it makes no difference.

Neither absolute time values nor absolute space values have any relevance in physics.

Since the absence of absolute space is an axiom not a proof, I would be surprised if such laws could be written. The best way you can ignore the absolute reference is to say you do need one. This is true to a degree with the STR system.

"Indeed, there is not a single physical law that requires absolute coordinates or should make use of them"

Perhaps all the laws have been developed in absolute space mindset. Bear in mind geocentrism has not subsided until 24th October 1601 when the last proponent Tycho de Brahe died. 

"...- neither in STR nor in classical Newtonian physics - and it is pretty unlikely that there will ever be one."

According to my current understanding there is a paradoxical situation where the STR can actually help to pinpoint the absolute simultaneity and resulting absolute reference frame. Just please do not think I am crazy. I will personally apologie to every person in RG I talked to when I find I was wrong. It is kind of silly of me to talk about it but not to disclose the details of reasoning, but I am trying to get any arguments against my statements that would knock down my concepts. 

"But I encourage you to continue your research as I think you raised an interesting question and I believe that relativity and QM have a deep and not yet completely clarified connection."

Thank you very much for that. It helps. I am generally attacked from all directions for many very different reasons. My logic skepticism, engineering background and many yeas of work with real time do no allow me to stop until my mind is free from contradictions. I do not care if the orthodox version of STR interpretation is right. I would be glad if I had proofs.  But I need proofs not evasion techniques.

The fact that STR is confirmed by experiments does not mean that inferences about time are all correct. They are not. I say this with certainty.

Andrew, thank you for the patent. I have to read it more carefully. At first glance, the meant synchronization is the clock of an entangled system. However, the clock of each subsystem will be arbitrarily different from the common clock of their entangled system. This is implied by the definition of entanglement. The patent innovation seems to be only the Einstein synchronizing photons to be generalized to entangled ones, which is not much though absolutely correct.

As to devil's advocate's argument: You mean, in fact, the Newton absolute simultaneity only seeming the Einstein relative one for one or other reason. The topological structure of the 3D Euclidean space (for Newton) implies an additional cyclical link in Minkowski space (for Einstein) because of Poincare's conjecture proved by Gregory Perelman. In other words, this means both causality and inverse causality for reconciling both kinds of simultaneity, and Einstein's viewpoint is only the half, that of "normal causality". So your viewpoint is consistent to Poincare's conjecture, which you might utilize in your argumentation. Indeed, any case of inverse causality can be reinterpreted "normally" exchanging in parallel cause and effect. That exchanging is what is meant by 'force' in classical mechanics, conserved by Einstein.

Valentin,

“…You think it's in reference to Earth? Think twice. It's in reference to an absolute reference frame…”

- that is practically the same; Earth is in some “cold” region in Matter’s spacetime and is practically at the absolute rest – correspondingly reference frames where   Earth is at rest are practically the absolute frames. Just therefore one can accelerate particles up to, say, 0.9 c 4-pi independently on the direction of the acceleration. If Earth would move with perceptible absolute speed, that very probably would be detected 50-60 years ago and the SR/GR obtained much lower corresponding status instead of “useful universal science"; the GR with its “curved spacetime” rather possibly would disappear at all and instead people study real 4-th fundamental force -  the gravity force.

That is another thing that Christian writes posts with claims that  “…The point is that if the laws of nature would require to incorporate "absolute" time and coordinate values, then it would be a practical catastrophe, maybe the end of physics as a useful universal science…”

- if physicists will understand that in the reality  Matter is placed in the absolute [5]4D Euclidian empty container/spacetime which, of course cannot be “transformed”,  nothing too wrong will happen with 99.99% of recent physics – the relativity principle indeed works effectively in most of physical situations – as, again, quite analogously in this case to that for 99.99%  recent physics all is the same – Earth rotates around Sun or Sun rotates around Earth.

But just because of till now there exist so many physicists that claim something as “SR/GR are rocks”, etc.,  physics-2016 doesn’t change practically from physics-1980; when those physicists again and again “solve” fundamental physical problems inside “Minkowski/ pseudo Riemannian” spaces and so outside the reality.

On another hand though, because of all “famous/brilliant/eminent/etc.” – though which didn’t obtain any indeed new and important physical results -  physicists are editors of mainstream physical journals, seems physics -2020, 2030… will be the same as physics-1980…

Cheers

Thank you Christian for this.

That is exactly the right type of information I was looking for. Will ave to read it now.

Thanks Christian

I very much appreciate your input. Both articles cover exactly the issue I am interested.

Both are very good in presentation of the problem but as far as I see they do not answer the question but formulate grounds from which this answer can be found.

Kim and Noz honestly say:

"In the EPR-type experiments two simultaneous measurements are taken at two different places. Would these two measurements appear simultaneous to an observer on a bicycle? We do not know where the story stands on this issue, because the problem includes both macroscopic and microscopic scales. This involves localization problems, in addition to the simultaneity issue. We are not able to provide a resolution to this problem in the present report"

Thanks Amrit

It looks worth reading.

   Relationship between clock synchronization, on the one hand, and the disentanglement, on the other, is rather subtle. The former is a pair of actual physical events. The latter requires only one event (measurement, say, at an end A of the initially entangled pair (A, B). This event alone seems to establish simultaneity with B, and that appears to be in conflict with SR, according to which simultaneity is a relative characteristic. The conflict is eliminated due to probabilistic nature of QM.                                                                                                                                  As an illustration, consider two receding spin-entangled electrons A and B from a common source C stationary in frame KC. Let Alice follow A (frame KA) while Bob follows B (frame KB). Let both measure the spin-component  Sz, with Alice's result (event A) being spin-up, while Bob's result (event B) is spin-down. Suppose their measurements are simultaneous in KC. Then in KA, A happens earlier than B, while in KB, their succession is opposite. And yet the disentanglement is instantaneous in either frame because each observer, knowing the conditions of the electrons' birth at C and the outcome of her/his measurement, can immediately predict the partner's result. From her result , Alice already knows  Bob's future result, which means that B has disentangled to spin-down simultaneously with her experiment, and Bob's actual measurement merely confirms her prediction. The similar prediction by Bob from his perspective would be equally true in his RF. And there is no conflict between the two observers' statements. The argument is the same as in the quantum collapse of a wave packet. In any RF, disentanglement at end B can be assigned the same moment as actual measurement at A, since it is nothing more than change of probability (e.g., jump from undetermined spin-state to a definite (probability P=1) spin state), which will only be confirmed later by a B-measurement. A pair of events (actual measurements) may have succession (AB) in one RF, and (BA) in another. To repeat: A disentanglement caused by only one actual measurement only at A or only at B is an instant process in any RF, since the change at non-measured end is a non-event but rather change of probability which is by itself not directly observable until the actual measurement. But the chronology of the measurements themselves is frame-dependent if the interval between them is space-like.  ( A more complete discussion of this topic can be found in my recent publication in arXiv:1605.05242 [physics.gen-ph] )

I want to add that physical synchronization via slow translation of a clock from A to B is only a theoretical possibility. It would be totally equivalent to conventional synchronization by the light signals only in the limit of infinitely slow motion of the transported clock, so it would take an infinite time and is therefore only of academic interest. 

I forgot to add the most important part of my answer - its conclusion: synchronization requires physical actions with clocks at both ends of AB, and their succession is frame-dependent. In contrast, disentanglement as such is universally simultaneous, but it is merely jump of probabilities at both ends, and at this level it has nothing to do with the Einstein synchronization. Its experimental verification is the next level, and the two actions at a and B respectively, may be simultaneous in one RF, but not simultaneous in others.

Andrew> Really? Is it not that "I am synchronised" information is passed to remote location at once?

No. These protocols also require classical communication, so they don't act "at once". I would say that they are implementations of Einstein synchronisation, with improvements in the mundane (from a fundamental point of view) areas of stability, accuracy and security.

I am puzzled that such a patent can be granted, because it seems to be based on prior art discussed in published articles already 20 years ago, with successful proof-of-principle experiments more than 10 years ago. The linked paper is to a more recent experiment.

It is not at all clear to me that entanglement is the essential mechanism for synchronisation in these methods, instead of the tight time correlation between the two members of photon pairs created by parametric down-conversion. I.e., I believe that in the title below quantum coherence is the important issue; the photons did not have to be in entangled states (although they happen to be). But I may be wrong on this, since I have not tried to go through the calculations behind.

http://www.nature.com/articles/srep30453

   An updated discussion of the subtle relationship between an instant disentanglement of a spatially-extended system and relativity of simultaneity can be found in my recent publication:                                                                                         European Journal of Physics, Volume 37, Number 6 (2016).

My proposal for synchronization using QE is here, see Appendix C.

Data 111 years of Magic are enough: Let us return to Science now

Dimitris> ...proposal...

For the benefit of busy readers, let me give a brief summary:

1. Pick up a few pigs, then go home and find some old taped episodes of Star Trek.

2a. Watch these, while you teach the pigs to fly.

2b. Ẃhen done to perfection, continue watching, while dreaming about building a gadget which violates the quantum No-Communication Theorem.

``That is correct that the object itself cannot detect it has shrunk. After all his meter stick is still the meter stick and it has 100 one centimeter tick marks irrespective of the velocity. It is however important to see if this object finds that the world has somehow become much larger. If you have moved from rest and remember position of all visible objects, does it mean the whole world has moved and shrunk?''

The world, of course, has not become ``much larger''. Let us assume ``the world'' to consist of two classes of objects, A and B objects, with A objects being essentially at rest with respect to each other, B objects also, but ll A objects to have a relativistic velocity with respect to B objects. Then A meter sticks will be 10 times an A-decimeter, and will have the appropriate number of wavelengths of an A-rubidium atom emitting light. Similarly for B-meter sticks and B-rubidium atoms. But an A meter stick will, when measured in terms of B meter sticks, appear to be, say, half as long.

And viceversa. Now how can that be? That is an issue of synchronisation: the measurement of an A meter stick by a B meter stick is not entirely symmetrical to the measurement of a B meter stick by an A meter stick, because in the first case you measure the two ends of the A meter stick at the same time *as viewed by B* and the opposite in the case of measuring a B meter stick in terms of A meter sticks.

So the B world looks small as viewed from A, the A world looks small as viewed from B, for nobody does it happen that ``the rest of the world has grown much larger''. Nor is it a sensible description of this state of affairs to say that A objects are shrunk by velocity: velocity is not an absolute property, but relative to the B objects, and the only thing shrunk are A-lengths *as measured by B-measures*.

As for entanglement, if you read the papers on that subject, they explicitly state that they aim at reproducing Einstein synchronisation, and to use some peculiarities of QM to improve the accuracy and reliability. All of which is excellent, but does not affect relativity in any way. Entanglement does not yield a way of determining absolute simultaneity.