- #36
Dale
Mentor
- 35,604
- 13,944
How does that define simultaneity?p764rds said:I would entangle two particles - maybe held in a crystal lattice - so they would have to be electrons in this case. Then take one on a high speed trip on an aeroplane, so that it lorentz time shifted a second - or as large as we could practically manage. Then on return from this trip measure the correlation of the two particles. It should come out to be >10,000 times the speed of light again even though one particle was a second older than the other. (Entanglement correlation experiments have already been done and proved it to be >10,000 times the speed of light, I can dig out the refs if you want).
For example, the Einstein simultaneity convention is as follows: two clocks are placed at rest wrt each other, the first sends a pulse of light when it reads t0, it is received at the other when it reads t1 and is immediately reflected back, the reflection is received back at the first clock when it reads t2. The two clocks are synchronized iff t1=(t0+t2)/2.
So that is how you can operationally define wether or not two clocks are synchronized using light. Could you try again using entanglement?
The worldlines of the entangled particles are certainly not horizontal. This situation is not any different than the Einstein convention where the worldlines of the clocks are vertical in the clocks' frame, but the simultaneity thus defined is horizontal.p764rds said:The world line is horizontal and its not a Minkowski space or riemann space.
Last edited: