Recent content by Nugatory

"Ultra-relativistic" will be one of the better ways of describing this case.

Light moving through space is an electromagnetic wave, and the speed of any wave is determined by the balance between whatever pushes the crests down and the troughs up and the force that opposes this motion. (This is of course a hand-wavey explanation, but a better one will involve a...

They are separated by distance in both frames, but simultaneous in just one frame. You might find it helpful to think about what the answer to part #d will look like fr this to be possible.

Unless there are more parts to the problem (the otherwise irrelevant Pauli matrices suggest that there might be) it looks as if these numbers were chosen arbitrarily to make the problem definite and the trig functions easily calculated. Sort like when the elementary school teacher says "Jill...

Achieving a decent undergraduate-level understanding of special relativity through self-study is not necessarily unrealistic - more realistic than becoming a professional pianist or maybe even a competent home player without training. However... Popular physics books are the wrong starting point...

Kinda sorta…. But I wouldn’t use the phrase “according to EPR” because all three of them would have agreed with your #29 calculation that the probability was 1/2 (as everybody did and does). The historical perspective, with handwaving: Around 1935 EPR presented a plausible argument that quantum...

Randomly picking the two axes gives a probability of 1/2 across the ensemble of pairs, as you correctly calculated in #29. From that ensemble we can select two subensembles - pairs in which we selected the same axis and pairs for which we selected different axes - and within these subensembles...

This attempt to extend an interpretation of non-relativistic QM into curved spacetime is off-topic for this thread and risks a major thread hijack. OP is asking about the alive/non-alive states and that can be discussed without bringing in any relativistic effects - please limit the discussion...

I just looked. You've misunderstood what he is saying, which is basically a less concise explanation of @DrChinese's "simplest proof of Bell's inequality". The point is that the predicted and observed percentages (which everyone agrees about) cannot be explained by any theory that preassigns...

You are making a mistake in your calculation somewhere, as both are using the ##\cos^2\theta## rule and agree about the probabilities of any measurement at any angle. Thus the empirical observations that are the starting point are the same: Measurements on the same axis will always show...

I’m still not following your argument here. EPR and QM agree about the probabilities of getting “opposite spin” in the sense of your post #29 so that cannot rule out the EPR argument.

I am not sure what you mean by “the EPR predicted probability”, but everyone agrees that the probability of opposite spins is a function of the angle between the two axes, and ranges from 100% when that angle is zero to 50% when that angle is 90 degrees and zero when that angle is 180 degrees...

In a bell test the measurement axes are not 90 degrees apart, because at that angle the inequality will not be violated - it’s the “equal” in the “less than or equal” formulation of the various forms of the inequality. Indeed, if we only consider tests with the axes at 90 degrees, there would...

No, the mass of the electron is unchanged, as is the mass of the proton.. The mass of a multi-particle system is generally not equal to the sum of the masses of the particles, so there’s no reason to expect that the mass of a hydrogen atom must be equal to the sum of the electron and proton...

The entire Alice/Bob two labs thing is just an aid to visualizing the important part, that there are two detectors. When I was doing this stuff back in college my two detectors were about 18 inches apart and I positioned them myself - conceptually no different than positioning them 18 feet...