Room-temperature superconductivity?

[happyjack27]

humans as amalgamations of quantum probability fields:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubism

[tomclarke]

Glad we've nailed this. What you write here is not true because spin cannot "manifest instantaneously". You can only determine spin by measuring it at some point in time, the measurement itself then changes the spin.

Correct and when you have two entangled entities and you measure spin on one of them, then the opposite spin must appear instantaneously on the other entity no matter how far it is away and no matter with which speed it is moving relative to the entity which is being measured.

Now, it is true that two measurements of entangled electrons at points A,B far separated will result in correlated statistics. However the times at which these two measurements are made do not matter, and do not affect the correlation.

Obviously, after spin has manifested on the part not being measured, you can measure it at any time later than it manifested on the part you first measured. But this does not remove the fact that once you measure spin on one part the opposite spin must appear simultaneously on the other part.

Try again, and this time answer the question: how can you synchronise two clocks by measuring spin?

I have just told you!

I agree, if spin "manifested instantaneously" you could do it.

Good, so we agree.

But it does not, and a sequence of repeated observations will not help because the entangled correlation will apply only to the first one.

No it applies to both: One cannot have spin on one part and no spin on the other part.

Furthermore, it will be the same correlation whenever that first measurement is made.

Correct! So it only requires one demon to make a measurement and the other demon will know istantaeously that such a measurement has been made! So what is your problem?

Johan,

I can't work out whether you realise how illogical your answers above sound.

I have explained in detail why spin cannot manifest instantaneously. You agree, but then say that because it appears instantaneously it does manifest instantaneously.

Your reason for this is "you can't have spin on one electron and no spin on the other".

But the issue is never that. It is how the entangled quantum wave-function is measured.

Your notion of "spin on the electron" is profoundly unphysical. It cannot be measured. The change that you claim happens instantaneously does not happen. To see this imagine the two measurements A/B with results. We can change the time of A or B arbitrarily. The two results will always correlate, but the change in time makes no difference to the result.

Even the wave function of the entangled electrons (unphysical) does not change instantaneously. Copenhagen interpretation says that it collapses at A or B when the measurement is made, Everett many world interpretation says that the measuring eqpt at A or B becomes correlated with the QE wave function. Either way the correlation between A & B spans time and is the same whichever of A or B happens first (assuming they have timelike separation).

The best way to visualise this is as two linked transactions (see Cramer. Each transaction is between a measurement (at A or B) and the source of the entangled electrons. The double transaction, spanning: A, B and an event long in the past of both A & B where the electrons are emitted, must be consistent.

The "spin on the electrons" is thus always consistent with the two measurements. In this sense it does not change when any one measurement is made because the transaction which defines it spans the electron's past (creation) and present (measurement).

These matters are subtle, and need more than a few paragraphs posted here, but you could read Cramer.

For us here, I note that you have not presented any way in which clocks could be synchronised using QE electron measurements. that is because they cannot so be, and therefore no definition of instantaneity can result from this.

I've explained a good deal about why this is so.

I will await your presentation of a thought experiment that would synchronise clocks using QE measurement: and if you do not have this assume that you retract your assertion.

[tomclarke]

I agree, if spin "manifested instantaneously" you could do it.

Usually when physicists talk about nonlocality in quantum mechanics, they’re referring to the fact that two particles can have immediate effects on each other, even when separated by large distances. Einstein famously called the phenomena “spooky interaction at a distance” because information about a particle seems to be traveling instantaneously; faster than the speed of light, violating the laws of causality.

Recent experiments in quantum physics revivify nonlocality in quantum mechanics.

These experiments indicate that quantum mechanics in violation of common sense does not conform to a principle of Leibniz’s metaphysics, the identity of indiscernibles. According to the principle, a pair of entangled quantum particles must be indiscernible from a single particle, since both objects have in common all the same properties—this is the only stipulation of the principle, number being irrelevant.

On the other hand, the single-state nonlocality demonstrated by nonlocality of a Single Particle reinforces the equivalence of a single state and an entangled state—giving more credence to the position that quantum field theory, where fields are given primacy, that fields are fundamental, and particles secondary, is the best representation of reality.

I see no need to fit the wonderful nature of QM, in which the math & experimental results beautifully agree, with definitions useful in a classical world.

Nor do I see the particle/field arguments as relevant. It is quite clear that (quantum) particles are identical with fields. the whole idea of distnct particles is an analogy that we like, but it breaks down in many case, e.g. BECs, double slit experiments. the math is beautiful, and represents both.

You are right, nonlocality in QM is spooky and counter-intuitive. Which is why we should not try to use clasical concepts to pin it down. They can be useful aids to understanding by analogy, as long as we don't expect that they "work".

[CaptainBeowulf]

Tom,

I only know about QM superficially - I've heard about "weak measurement" of quantum particles for over a decade now, don't know how accurate this wikipedia article is, but it seems to sum up some of what I've heard:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_measurement

On a superficial interpretation, it seems as if weak measurement could possibly be used to circumvent the normal altering of the entangled particles' state when you make a measurement, and so be used to communicate information via quantum entanglement (ie. make a direct observation which changes the state, then the person on the other side takes a weak measurement). Can you explain why it won't work this way?

Apart from that, I'll just add that this thread is very interesting. Your defence of the mainstream interpretation of GR seems pretty coherent and detailed to me, but Johan's attempts to poke holes in it are also interesting. Even though Johan throws out the occasional personal insult, I find that I'm learning a bit from reading this argument.

[Teahive]

Johan,

Demons are fine, since you can take any reference frame and simply declare it to be the "global reference frame" (even though it is not observed to be special in any way). However if we do that and e.g. assume K to be this reference frame, I do not believe your thought experiment turns out the way you describe:

Well let us stop time and measure the actual, simultaneous lengths within both Kp and K at this single instant in time So, being demons, they stop the time and thus the relative motion, and measure the length of the rod with their tape measure within both Kp and K: And holy cow, the two demons within Kp did not lie to them: The instantaneous length within Kp and K are indeed exactly the same and equal to Lp in both cases.

If you stopped time (in the global reference frame), a tape measure that was stationary in K and a tape measure that was stationary in Kp would look different in any global reference frame except the one that is "half-way between K and Kp", i.e. where the two relative velocities add to zero.

Of course "look" is the wrong word here as without time there would be no light propagation, and we'd have to assume an observer outside our spacetime who can inspect its state at will.

The demons within K are not immediately happy: “But is this not contrived?”. They receive the response: “Why is it more contrived than to choose the time interval as (delta)Tp so that the marks appear within K at the same instant of time. “But” protest the demons within K, “when we look at the passing rod we can see that, at the same instant in time, the front and rear ends are at a shorter distance from each other than Lp”. “Sure” comes the response, “but what you see is not a contracted rod, since you are not able to see the actual positions of the nose and rear of the rod at the same instant in time within K. Since you know that this is so, why do you want to be stubbornly stupid to claim that the rod actually becomes shorter within K?”

You are arguing semantics. You want to define "length" to mean "invariant/rest length" instead of "relativistic/observed length", analogous to invariant and relativistic mass. But there is nothing "stubbornly stupid" about the latter term. It is, after all, what you actually measure when you compare the moving object to a reference length in K, for any given moment in K. Consider the example of an ultra-fast camera in K, capturing in the same photo both the moving rod and a reference length stationary in K.

The fact is that according to SR, if you suddenly stop all relative motion you will find that all clocks in the universe, no matter in which inertial reference frame they were when motion stopped, will show exactly the same time.

But as I said, I do not require demons to prove what I derived above with demons. Neither do I require them to prove that the time rates of all clocks within all inertial reference frames are identically the same since this is mandated by Einstein's first postulate of SR that it must be so.

SR mandates no such thing. I tried to hint at this by describing how "measuring c" is circular, which is why you can never end up with anything but c even if c was different in different parts of the universe (only an observer outside of our universe, thus not itself bound by our laws of physics, could notice a difference).

I'll try to write an explanation of why I believe SR is compatible with the things you say it isn't. It should be concise and easy to understand, especially for anyone with a basic understanding of how computer simulations or synchronous ICs work. It will have to wait until tomorrow, though.

[johanfprins]

Johan,

I can't work out whether you realise how illogical your answers above sound.

You are the one that is illogical by not accepting that, according to Einstein's own postulates, inertial reference frames must be the same as far as all laws of physics are concerned. Thus, from Einstein's first postulate two inertial observers doing the same experiment within their respective reference frames MUST get the same result, unless one of them is an incompetent scientist; typically found at Cambridge University.

Thus if both of them measure the decay time of the SAME radio-active material, they MUST get the same answer. They will not get the same answer if the clocks within their respective reference frame do NOT keep time at the same rate.

Thus if at any time in the past two passing clocks have been synchronised and then all clocks within their respective reference frames have then been set to show the same time as the two synchronised clocks are showing, then all the clocks within both reference frames, no matter how far they are from one another, and no matter that they are moving relative to one another, must show the same time IN UNISON: There are thus NOT different times at different positions, and within different inertial reference frames, as you illogically argue that there must be.

I have explained in detail why spin cannot manifest instantaneously. You agree,

I did not agree!

but then say that because it appears instantaneously it does manifest instantaneously.

The fact is that when you measure within one reference frame the spin, the opposite spin MUST manifest at that same instant in time within the other inertial reference frame; even though spin was not defined for the entangled wave before the spin is measured. If you claim this is not possible then calculate the time difference please, instead of just dogmatically stating that this situation is "undefined" or "unphysical". If you want to hide behind these two senseless assertions you must be able to prove that they are indeed correct: Which they are not!

Your reason for this is "you can't have spin on one electron and no spin on the other".

But the issue is never that. It is how the entangled quantum wave-function is measured.

Obviously you must do a measurement and EPR clearly requires that when you do decide to do a spin measurement on one part of the entangled "bi-electron" wave, the other part must interact simultaneously to manifest the opposite spin. This means that at that single instant in time the two parts disentangle into two separate electron-waves. This happens whether you check the spin on the other side or not. This disentanglement demands simultaneity between two positions, one within one inertial reference frame and the other position within the other inertial reference frame: In other words the synchronised clocks at the two positions show exactly the same time; and as argued above, these two clocks are counting off the time in unison, even though they are situated within two different inertial reference frames.

Your notion of "spin on the electron" is profoundly unphysical. It cannot be measured. The change that you claim happens instantaneously does not happen. To see this imagine the two measurements A/B with results. We can change the time of A or B arbitrarily. The two results will always correlate, but the change in time makes no difference to the result.

Obviously, you can check the spin on the other side at any time after the spin has been measured on this side. But the EPR argument requires that when you measure on this side, the other side must instantaneously change in sympathy.

Even the wave function of the entangled electrons (unphysical) does not change instantaneously. Copenhagen interpretation says that it collapses at A or B when the measurement is made,

EDITED VERSION: not OR The whole wave collapses instantaneously at all point which it occupies.

Everett many world interpretation says that the measuring eqpt at A or B becomes correlated with the QE wave function.

If you believe Everett’s BS then your mind is even more in disarray than I thought in my wildest dreams.

Either way the correlation between A & B spans time and is the same whichever of A or B happens first (assuming they have timelike separation).

Please calculate this time difference for me by using quantum mechanics (not QE and "normalisation" please) without just claiming that there must be a time difference.

The best way to visualise this is as two linked transactions (see Cramer. Each transaction is between a measurement (at A or B) and the source of the entangled electrons. The double transaction, spanning: A, B and an event long in the past of both A & B where the electrons are emitted, must be consistent.

The transaction interpretation of wave mechanics is just as insane as Everett’s many-worlds.

The "spin on the electrons" is thus always consistent with the two measurements. In this sense it does not change when any one measurement is made because the transaction which defines it spans the electron's past (creation) and present (measurement).

Further BS.

These matters are subtle, and need more than a few paragraphs posted here, but you could read Cramer.

I have read Cramer. The explanation of the collapse of a wave is not as "subtle" as you would like it to be. A wave “collapses” when the measurement you make changes its boundary conditions instantaneously. Why? Because that is what real waves do: They change shape and size when a change boundary conditions requires that they do. And if the boundary conditions require an instantaneous ”collapse”, the wave changes shape and size instantaneously. Thus by measuring spin, the WHOLE wave must change instantaneously so that an opposite spin appears within the other inertial reference frame. This also happens when an s-orbital within a hydrogen atom absorbs a photon. This orbital can then not stay a spherical orbital and it thus instantaneously “inflates” to form a higher energy standing wave. When this higher energy wave emits a photon, the electron wave instantaneously “collapses”. These “inflations” and “collapses” have become known by the misleading term: “quantum jumps”. They are not caused by the collapse of a “probability wave” but by REAL wave intensities that instantaneously adapts when a measurement is made which requires such an instantaneous collapse or inflation.

For us here, I note that you have not presented any way in which clocks could be synchronised using QE electron measurements.

Why QE electron measurements? All clocks within all inertial reference frames keep time in unison, and can therefore be synchronised in the manner that I have explained above.

that is because they cannot so be, and therefore no definition of instantaneity can result from this.

I have just now shown you that all clocks within all inertial reference frames must keep time in unison (or else Einstein's first postulate must be wrong) and that therefore they can be synchronised to show exactly the same time at any instant of time on any one of these clocks.

I've explained a good deal about why this is so.

No you have not! You have only made dogmatic statements based on the assumption that clocks at different positions within an inertial reference frame keep time at different rates; and then contradicted yourself by acknowledging that within an inertial reference frame the clocks at different positions can be synchronised to show the same time at any instant in time on any one of these clocks. So do synchronised clocks at different positions within an inertial reference frame show different times? Yes or No?

I will await your presentation of a thought experiment that would synchronise clocks using QE measurement: and if you do not have this assume that you retract your assertion.

Why QE when I have demonstrated above that this must be so in terms of Einstein’s first postulate? I also gave you a thought experiment to show how such synchronisation can be done.

[johanfprins]

I see no need to fit the wonderful nature of QM, in which the math & experimental results beautifully agree, with definitions useful in a classical world.

Wow!! This is the most bipolar schizophrenic argument I have ever come across. Both classical mechanics and quantum mechanics describe our Universe: This must mean that there must be a logical connection that will unify the two fields. It is this lack of insight which has caused modern physics to be interpreted in terms of metaphysical paranormal concepts like “wave-particle duality”, “complimentarity”, “transactional universe”, Everett’s multi-uinverse”, Wheelers conclusion that what we do now affects the past; etc. etc. etc. Yes the mathematics works, but for as long as we do not unify classical mechanics and quantum mechanics, we will be forced to interpret this beautiful mathematics in terms of Voodoo concepts.

I believe that classical mechanics and quantum mechanics dovetail when we reject the ill-defined concept of “particles”, and realise that all entities with mass have a centre-of-mass. Although this centre-of mass moves as we claim a "particle" moves, the entity with a centre-of-mass which moves is NOT a particle. A free, stationary, electron is thus not a particle, but a localised wave for which, just as for any and all harmonic waves, its intensity is related to its energy. Thus, its intensity is proportional to its mass plus gravitational energy. But since it has a centre-of-mass it must be so that when this electron-wave moves past an observer this centre-of-mass follows a classical path; even though the electron is a wave: NOT a "particle".

But in addition, when such an electron wave moves past you, it manifests within your reference frame according to a Lorentz transformation. It becomes longer, and the phase angles that act as a clocks at different positions along the wave, are now out of phase with position. Thus, even though the electron wave’s centre-of-mass is moving like a "particle" relative to you, its intensity-distribution has crests and troughs like any running wave has. Thus, when it encounters a diffraction grating, it can diffract. The wavelength defined by these crests and troughs in terms of the speed v of the electron wave, is given by the De Broglie relationship. Thus to assume that the De Broglie wave length also manifests for stationary electron waves around a nucleus, is nonsensical.

Nor do I see the particle/field arguments as relevant. It is quite clear that

(quantum) particles are identical with fields.

There are no “particles” only matter waves.

the whole idea of distnct particles is an analogy that we like,

I do not like it.

but it breaks down in many case, e.g. BECs, double slit experiments.

It is not “breaking down” it only proves that what we call a particle is still an actual wave.

the math is beautiful, and represents both.

Nope it only represents waves: The only reason why it is stupidly assumed that it also represents “particles” is caused by the approximation that both Schroedinger and Dirac made by using the rest mass energy of the electron as an input, instead of realising that it must be the solution of a differential wave equation when it is solved for a solitary electron within its own inertial reference frame. This is why quantum field theory will one day collapse: And the sooner the better, There are NO PARTICLES only waves which can change shape and size when the boundary conditions change. This change in shape also allows a single electron wave to form two entangled parts which move simultaneously through two slits.

You are right, nonlocality in QM is spooky and counter-intuitive.

No it is not! It follows directly from the properties of a matter-wave. Time does not exist within the mass-intensity of a matter-wave (like an electron-wave) so that such a a wave is in instantaneous contact with itself, and can therefore also morph instantaneously when a change in the boundary conditions demands that it must. An entangled wave is similarly in instantaneous contact with itself. Therefore a measurement on one part of an entangled wave must cause an instantaneous reaction on the part.

Which is why we should not try to use clasical concepts to pin it down. They can be useful aids to understanding by analogy, as long as we don't expect that they "work".

You call yourself physicist? For as long as we cannot reconcile classical mechanics and quantum mechanics on these issues, our interpretation of modern physics will remain metaphysical, paranormal Voodoo!

[johanfprins]

Tom,

I only know about QM superficially - I've heard about "weak measurement" of quantum particles for over a decade now, don't know how accurate this wikipedia article is, but it seems to sum up some of what I've heard:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_measurement

On a superficial interpretation, it seems as if weak measurement could possibly be used to circumvent the normal altering of the entangled particles' state when you make a measurement, and so be used to communicate information via quantum entanglement (ie. make a direct observation which changes the state, then the person on the other side takes a weak measurement). Can you explain why it won't work this way?

Excellent question and very valid. Usually when you make a measurement in quantum mechanics you change the wave to become an eigen-state of the parameter you are measuring. In other words, the measuring apparatus changes the boundary conditions from what they were before the measurement to a new set of boundary conditions. The wave affected by this change in boundary conditions thus morphs in shape, size and even energy, and can even form fractions to adapt to the new boundary conditions. This I will define as a "strong" measurement. If the change in boundary conditions is instantaneous, the wave has to also change instantaneously.

It is, however, in principle, also possible that the wave is already within the eigenstate that it must be in for the parameter being measured. A value for the parameter is then obtained without altering the wave frrom what it was before the measurement. This I will define as a "weak" measurement.

Obviously when you have an entangled "bi-electron" wave consisting of two parts that are moving away from one another and an observer measures spin on one part, the boundary conditions for the whole wave changes instantaneously, so that it simultaneously disentangles into two separate electron waves with opposite spins. If the observer on the other side has an apparatus that can measure spin using a "weak" measurement, he/she should pick up the spin on their part as soon as it appears instantaneously simultaneously with the spin on the part where the actual measurement has been made which instantaeously changed the boundary conditions.

Even though Johan throws out the occasional personal insult,

Sorry about that: But after all the insults and kicks that I have had to endure during the past 10 years you should be pleased with the amount of self-control I am still able to muster. Yes I am angry since the treatment I got from mainstream physicists have been in violation of the most sacred principles on which physics debate should be based.

[johanfprins]

SR mandates no such thing.

Wrong! See post 599.

I'll try to write an explanation of why I believe SR is compatible with the things you say it isn't. It should be concise and easy to understand, especially for anyone with a basic understanding of how computer simulations or synchronous ICs work. It will have to wait until tomorrow, though.

Why not derive your conclusion directly from Einstein's postulates and the Lorentz transformation?

[Teahive]

SR mandates no such thing.

Wrong! See post 599.

Unfortunately this forum software does not feature post numbers (not post counts), so I don't know which post you are referring to. It's certainly not on page 40.

I'll try to write an explanation of why I believe SR is compatible with the things you say it isn't. It should be concise and easy to understand, especially for anyone with a basic understanding of how computer simulations or synchronous ICs work. It will have to wait until tomorrow, though.

Why not derive your conclusion directly from Einstein's postulates and the Lorentz transformation?

It's not a conclusion, it's an explanation of SR.

[tomclarke]

Tom,

I only know about QM superficially - I've heard about "weak measurement" of quantum particles for over a decade now, don't know how accurate this wikipedia article is, but it seems to sum up some of what I've heard:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_measurement

On a superficial interpretation, it seems as if weak measurement could possibly be used to circumvent the normal altering of the entangled particles' state when you make a measurement, and so be used to communicate information via quantum entanglement (ie. make a direct observation which changes the state, then the person on the other side takes a weak measurement). Can you explain why it won't work this way?

Apart from that, I'll just add that this thread is very interesting. Your defence of the mainstream interpretation of GR seems pretty coherent and detailed to me, but Johan's attempts to poke holes in it are also interesting. Even though Johan throws out the occasional personal insult, I find that I'm learning a bit from reading this argument.

I don't know this stuff. Reading the wiki talk page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Weak_measurement
It seems that weak measurement is highly controversial. Hence the idea that it could get round normal QM limits is even more so. I have not checked the criticism & original math - but if it were a real hole in QM allowing FTL signalling it would be published and dissected much more than it has been.

There have been people (for example) claiming that measurements producing Bell inequality data, when analysed in detail, contravene the inequality. I don't find this convincing: it is a small effect relying on questionable statistical assumptions.

Whenerver there is something like this it is much more interesting to claim some well-known law has been broken, than to work out the errors or issues that mean this is only an appearance. What you read on the web tends to be the initial "it looks strange" paper, or the equivalent "this could be a loophole" theory paper. The analysis and explanation tends to be less interesting.

Where experimental data is reliably contrary to theory the whole matter gets a lot of publicity: and theory is changed. It does not happen much!

I hope the FTL neutrinos are real - but expect they are not.

Tom

[tomclarke]

The fact is that when you measure within one reference frame the spin, the opposite spin MUST manifest at that same instant in time within the other inertial reference frame; even though spin was not defined for the entangled wave before the spin is measured. If you claim this is not possible then calculate the time difference please, instead of just dogmatically stating that this situation is "undefined" or "unphysical". If you want to hide behind these two senseless assertions you must be able to prove that they are indeed correct: Which they are not!

I claim "at that same instant in time" is not meaningful unless a canonical global time measure exists. You are trying to prove this, so you can't assume it here!

Quote:
Your reason for this is "you can't have spin on one electron and no spin on the other".

But the issue is never that. It is how the entangled quantum wave-function is measured.
Obviously you must do a measurement and EPR clearly requires that when you do decide to do a spin measurement on one part of the entangled "bi-electron" wave, the other part must interact simultaneously to manifest the opposite spin.

There is no "when" in the EPR experiment. It merely says that the two measurements must be correlated regardless of time at which they are made. Nothing else.

This means that at that single instant in time the two parts disentangle into two separate electron-waves.

You've done it again. This only makes sense if you have a unique global time measure. It is clear that many equally valid global time measures exist. (One for every possible frame).

This happens whether you check the spin on the other side or not.

This statement may be your belief. But it is not physically measureable, directly or indirectly, and also (see above) not physically meaningful.

This disentanglement demands simultaneity between two positions, one within one inertial reference frame and the other position within the other inertial reference frame: In other words the synchronised clocks at the two positions show exactly the same time; and as argued above, these two clocks are counting off the time in unison, even though they are situated within two different inertial reference frames.

That cannot be true. Disproof. Suppose the two frames are identical (no velocity). the two particles A & B, can be measured at different times:
A at 1s
B at 2s

or the other way round:
A at 2s
B at 1s

The results do not depend on when the measurements happen. All QM says is that they correlate. There is nothing physical here to provide time synchronisation between the two measurements.

[Teahive]

What is time?

A second is defined as "the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom". Thus it is a sequence of oscillations of electromagnetic radiation. Both points are very important. It means that propagation of electromagnetic waves defines time. Interestingly, it also defines space, as we can measure distances by timing the propagation of light.

Let's make a short thought experiment: What if an observer external to our spacetime told us that light propagates faster in one direction than it does in another direction? Would we measure a difference? No, we wouldn't, because this anisotropy would be an intrinsic part of ourselves, our brains, our measurement rods and our clocks, and thus would be completely undetectable. If propagation of electromagnetic waves defines time, it does not matter how "slow" or "fast" it is to an external observer.

Now, this is exactly the situation we find when we assume the existence of an aether, i.e. an absolute reference frame. Relative to a moving object, light would propagate slower in its direction of travel and faster in the opposite direction. But an observer travelling along cannot detect this, because his time is defined by this unequal propagation of light. Whereas a stationary oberver's clock measuring "absolute time" based on equal propagation would require light to travel 0.5 lightseconds both ways (it's an oscillation) to "tick" once, the moving observer's clock requires 0.5*c/(c+v) + 0.5*c/(c-v) lightseconds of propagation in "absolute space" to tick once.

However, because an absolute reference frame is undetectable as reasoned above, we have to conclude that reversing the roles of the reference frames is also possible. This can only be true if there is no global, unique concept of time, that the time axis in one reference frame translates to a time-and-space axis in another reference frame. Which is exactly what you get with the Lorentz transformation.

Thus if at any time in the past two passing clocks have been synchronised and then all clocks within their respective reference frames have then been set to show the same time as the two synchronised clocks are showing, then all the clocks within both reference frames, no matter how far they are from one another, and no matter that they are moving relative to one another, must show the same time IN UNISON: There are thus NOT different times at different positions, and within different inertial reference frames, as you illogically argue that there must be.

Two different inertial reference frames have different space and time axes. The intersection of the t=0 space volume and the t'=0 space volume is a plane, and only on this plane clocks all show the same time.

[happyjack27]

and the rate of propagation of electromagnetic waves is defined by the rate at which the interference of quantum probability fields beget new quantum probability fields.

which leads back to my conjecture that the rate of time (and by extension the curvature of space) is determined by the quantum information rate of free space. and from this follows gravity.

[johanfprins]

It's not a conclusion, it's an explanation of SR.

I am looking forward to it!