Was Einstein wrong about special relativity?

[LionJim]

Thanks for the link.

In the article you suggested is the following statement: "However, all interpretations agree that entanglement produces correlation between the measurements and that the mutual information between the entangled particles can be exploited, but that any transmission of information at faster-than-light speeds is impossible.[10][11]"

“Mutual information” is what is connected to EPR. That particular transmission of information happens instantaneously, so it seems that the last sentence should read “…any other transmission of information…”

Physics is so much harder than mathematics. With mathematics you know exactly what you're working with, exactly what the definitions are. When mathematicians write, they spell out exactly what the situation is and you can easily follow along, not worrying if you’re missing anything. Bohr and Heisenberg couldn’t even agree on the parameters of the Copenhagen Interpretation.

 

[Nitwit]

This is a great thread. I’m a novice at all this, but it interests me, so thanks for posting some of the summaries above. I need to read up some to learn more. I’ve barely advanced beyond a mild “understanding” of string theory.

 

[BobPSU92]

“Mutual information” is what is connected to EPR. That particular transmission of information happens instantaneously, so it seems that the last sentence should read “…any other transmission of information…”

Physics is so much harder than mathematics. With mathematics you know exactly what you're working with, exactly what the definitions are. When mathematicians write, they spell out exactly what the situation is and you can easily follow along, not worrying if you’re missing anything. Bohr and Heisenberg couldn’t even agree on the parameters of the Copenhagen Interpretation.

In other words, physics is a bunch of hooey.

 

[LionJim]

This is a great thread. I’m a novice at all this, but it interests me, so thanks for posting some of the summaries above. I need to read up some to learn more. I’ve barely advanced beyond a mild “understanding” of string theory.

Go read Gribben. His telling the story of how Rutherford discovered the atomic nucleus is worth the price of the book.

 

[MontereyLion]

Look at how long it took to put an asterisk on Newton's laws of gravity and motion. I am sure Relativity will eventually get an asterisk, too.

 

[LionJim]

Look at how long it took to put an asterisk on Newton's laws of gravity and motion. I am sure Relativity will eventually get an asterisk, too.

Ain’t no asterisks in mathematics, thank God.

 

[LionJim]

Go read Gribben. His telling the story of how Rutherford discovered the atomic nucleus is worth the price of the book.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Search_of_Schr%C3%B6dinger's_Cat

 

[LionJim]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Search_of_Schr%C3%B6dinger's_Cat

This book is very good on the central mystery of quantum physics, the Two-Slit Experiment.

Double-slit experiment - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Bkmtnittany1]

I wonder what Einstein would have thought about all the neutrinos on the Weather thread!

 

[LionJim]

I wonder what Einstein would have thought about all the neutrinos on the Weather thread!

Richard Feynman would work on physics at strip clubs.

 

[BobPSU92]

Ain’t no asterisks in mathematics, thank God.

Incorrect.

1 * 3 = 3

 

[Woodpecker]

This book is very good on the central mystery of quantum physics, the Two-Slit Experiment.

Double-slit experiment - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Two slits at the same time, man